You seem to be implying here that religion predates values and morality. But from where did religion derive value and morality? I think it may be the other way around: religion merely documented a pre-existing set of values.

Well, I think Chris said it for me. So thank you! My work is done without me having had to lift a finger.

It is time now to get serious about religion - all religion - and draw a firm line between the real world and the world of dreams

The Aborigines have done the exact opposite, and their approach has seemed to serve them quite well for a very long time. Their more rationally-minded oppressors might want to take a long look at themselves, however.

But never was it more important to separate the state from all faiths and relegate all religion to the private - but well-regulated - sphere

Jainism might be the most ethically advanced system of belief and practice this planet has ever seen. If Jains were ruling the world, we’d likely all be better off for it.

What we’re actually talking about here [in London] is violence, the opposite of which is peace. Isn’t it rather obvious that the cause of peace can best be served by a ‘coalition of the caring, the loving, the ethical’, whether religiously motivated, rationally motivated, or, like most of us, motivated by some combination of these? Of course, this kind of coalition wouldn’t be willing to let British/American imperialism off the hook so easily, since state-sponsored violence kills you every bit as dead as the independent-operator kind does.

Incidentally, what does Facscism have to do with trying to “abandon the irrational”? From what I’ve learned, fascism differs from Stalinism in placing society, or alleged “tradition”, before ideology. When did fascists ever view reason as an end in itself?

I want to separate religion and state authority.

I tend to think a much more important argument is that state authority IS a religion. An authority-led prayer doesn’t use emblems of traditional religions, and when they are used - as in Bush’s case - it’s just a smokescreen to distract you from the increasing strength of the state religion.

the matrix revolutions ending is all about wilber’s ideas pictorally and verbally represented

aah, so that’s why matrix revolutions sucked. it all makes perfect sense now!

While you’re reading Wilber correctly in some respects (and the Matrix Trilogy is basically Wilberian cyber-mythology, in fact one of the only public interviews given by the Wachowskis was with Wilber on his talk show, IntegralNaked.org), there are some I’m not so sure about- the world-hating aspect, for instance. In fact, the whole thrust of SES is to unite “descending and ascending”, “god and goddess”- some people get after him for being too sex-positive, too tech-positive, even too much of an environmentalist! And to be “one with ultimate reality” is, according to Wilber, a state that we are in all the time- we’re merely not conscious of it (and there is no more unconscious a state than being dead, so this critique is incorrect as well)- as he would describe it, we go from “unconscious hell” to “conscious hell” to “conscious heaven”- or, in Matrix-terminology, The Matrix, The Real World, and The Source.

Tim:
Yes, Descartes Error is an excellent book, as is “The Feeling of What Happens”, his followup. I haven’t read Damasio’s latest, “Looking for Spinoza”, but I probably should- especially before I begin work on a paper I’m contemplating, which uses Damasio’s work to show how brain function and the Kabbalistic model of reality match up…

My question is, from where do we derive value and morality if not from religion?

You seem to be implying here that religion predates values and morality. But from where did religion derive value and morality? I think it may be the other way around: religion merely documented a pre-existing set of values.

For example, half the ten commandments are just common sense: don’t kill or steal, etc.. (The other half are propaganda: no other Gods before me, etc..) “God” didn’t make them up–people did, long before Christianity or Judaism.

While I don’t believe values and morality are necessarily instinctive, I do believe human beings are capable of deriving them on their own, and have been doing so for a long time.

On a tangent, it’s a pity the last six commandments are tied to Christianity. I see nothing wrong with having them displayed in classrooms and courtrooms. Unfortunately, the foaming-at-the-mouth “atheist fundamentalists” can’t see past the religious connection and resist such common sense.

Link to 10 commandments: http://www.therain.org/studies/ten.html

Whenever the folly of compatibility is brought to light, alienation sets in, and soon people begin to see themselves as pitted against the world because of their imaginary beliefs.

There is no solving of the “religion problem” until humans can figure out how to make some beliefs compatible with others. This is a tall task, but not impossible– it just might take several lifetimes to get it right.

i have to tell you ken wilber’s integralism is just the kind of secular religion the NWO would be looking for. basically wilber’s current philosophical phase or as he calls it ‘Wilber 5′ started back when he discovered spiral dynamics by don beck in 2000. now spiral dynamics uses the theory of memetics but with a twist, as don beck sells himself and his book to corporations as the perfect solution for employee conflict in business, ie social control. so what i mean to say is with ken wilber’s ever evolving god conscious ‘god will become us’, or rrather that we humans, conscious beings are god to a degree/will become god AND you toss in spiral dynamics (a crafty tool to identify people’s mental landscapes and how they act from them - memes) you get an excellent means of social control through meme exploitation with the added spiritual delusion that is ken wilber’s perpetuative ability good (a mental virus of its own)

a side note: ken wilber likes to say that Tony Blair is the most integral leader there is today. while Don Beck told once that George Bush is such a nice guy who was ‘chosen by the spiral’ whatever that means

because too many rational people seek to appease and understand unreason.

I think the problem is actually the opposite - that too many rational people are cut off from thinking about anything in ways that are not rational. They simply can’t understand it. In instances like this, I can sort of see the usefulness of Wilber’s color-coding spiral dynamics system. Rational people can’t see that not everybody basing things on rationality (hell, rationalists dont at the end of the day either). And I can see the point of having a system to deliver to rationalists which allows them to understand other people’s motivations.

But then, simply talking to somebody might help too. But both used in conjunction - may it’s really not the horrible danger I made it out to be, as long as you don’t take it too far (which rationalists are almost certain to, considering their love of systems)

Nicq, I also think that book sounds really fascinating:

that he is implying that many of the “irrational” beliefs that we absorb are actually necessary for human functioning and decision-making- hence, our emotional intuitions and attachments might be much more vital to the proper conduct of life than it seems at first glance.

This seems to me like a much smarter way to “integrate” the two ways of thinking - to show that they arent different or stages in development, but that they come out of a common ground and need one another.

when people stop thinking emprically as much and start relying on “systems” of thought we get more delusional results.

Ive been thinking this a lot too, brekin. That systems are great and really useful, but if you get too caught in them, you get cut off from your source: people, who dont fit into any system.

James, thats an awesome way of looking at it. Jung talked a lot about how archetypes can form constellations in the mind - but also how archetypes precede the mind. That shit’s fascinating.

pfft where do animals aquire morality? it’s all instinctive, unless you’re fucked up in some way, you’ll know what is or isn’t good to do.

Animals don’t have morality. They have instinct. I don’t know that I really buy the idea that being “fucked up” is what makes people do things wrong. It seems like too simplistic of an answer that doesnt take into account all the directions that someone can be pulled in a scenario

A constellation is a two-dimensional construct, superimposed over something that has more than two or three dimensions. Religion functions the same way– yes, it is real, but only to those who can negotiate this superimposition.

Humans can use it, but it isn’t needed.

pfft where do animals aquire morality? it’s all instinctive, unless you’re fucked up in some way, you’ll know what is or isn’t good to do.

Which includes (depending on the animal) infanticide (housecats), rape (mallard ducks), sex changes (certain breeds of chicken), incest (certain crickets), killing for pleasure (wolverines)…

In any event, it explains why humans find it hard to abolish the “unrational” (whether “prerational” or “transrational”- in this context, the distinction isn’t that relevant). It also provides some explanation for why societies that try to abandon the irrational end up falling prey to it’s worst extremes (take anywhere where Communism has been applied or Fascism has arisen, or even just witness the rise of Deconstruction and the New Age). Granted, I’m as guilty of this as anyone I know, but it’s part of the human mystique. Another interesting “case in point” on this issue is that of Eliezer Yudkowsky, the transhuman AI coder. Google that name, and read some of his online papers- they’re brilliant, hyperrational, and completely batshit crazy. (Yudkowsky views rationalism as a “martial art” that one has to dedicate their life to- and it leads him to some absurd conclusions at times. It’s fun to watch.)

My question is, from where do we derive value and morality if not from religion?

If you assume that other people are as real as you are, you can derive a great deal of modern morality through the principle of reciprocity. Only minimal metaphysics (rejection of solipsism) required. (I’m sure someone with an actual philosophy background could go into greater detail on the subject than I could.)