RE: Does Steemit Support Oligarchy More Than Anarchism? Does Real Anarchy Lead to World Peace? How WIll Steemit Evolve?

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Does Steemit Support Oligarchy More Than Anarchism? Does Real Anarchy Lead to World Peace? How WIll Steemit Evolve?

in steemit •  7 years ago  (edited)

Ah, you see, as much as I can agree with your rather correct assessment of anarchism and its problematic relationship to capitalism I find myself having to part ways with you on matters of metaphysics. No biggie really and certainly nothing new.
But first allow me my quibbles: you are asserting religion no matter how much you deny it. From what I can assess you are asserting one of the many schools of Hindu or Buddhist thought. Perhaps Advaita? This is one of the oldest RELIGIONS on the planet and to assert it isn't a religion is frankly, duplicitous. But one would only need to allow for a small shift in approach for me to be okay with it and perhaps philosophically agree as a 'spiritual hypothesis'.
If one were to say, it's my opinion..... Or, this is my personal belief about spirituality, but I have no way to prove it.... Or, any number of qualifications that made it clear that this metaphysics is a matter of personal experience and preference......As it is, though, you seem to be espousing spiritual dogmatism alongside some accurate​ assessments of anarchy.....
BTW: I am suggesting in various blogs that universities start setting up 'spiritual' departments so as to verify or falsify innumerable conflicting​ religious and spiritual claims. To my knowledge, after 500 years of science studying spiritual claims,​ we have only verified the limited efficacy​ of meditation and yoga. But again. I'm 100% behind any initiative which​ wants to study, empirically,​​ spiritual claims in more depth........

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:  

Whether a religious group agrees with me or not is irrelevant to whether or not what I am saying contains religion. Neither I, nor my words are aligned with any particular religion and there is no religion on Earth that agrees with what I know to be correct now.
If a religious group says that a day is 24 hours long, I will not claim that you are being religious if you say the same ;)

Sure, but your claim is still religious and should be treated as such.....

I am not going to go around in circles with you. We disagree.

Indeed!

This is a powerful sub-thread, actually.
I THINK (please correct me if I'm wrong, @ura-soul ) that you place your non-verbal experience as of the same value TO YOU as all the human tools of structured verbal experience of science, math, political science, sociology, etc.- book- and school-learned tools.
I THINK @andrewmarkmusic is claiming this is not a valid equivalence TO HIM and should be qualified in such a way, that the verbal tools have some primacy as the ultimate determinants of meaning in any discussion.
If my understanding of this is correct, "a wink's as good as a nod, nudge, nudge".

Hey, tvulgaris, happy to be of amusement:) I won't speak for ura-soul who I have no quarrel with; but yes, definitely some quibbles!
To me, there are multiple issues here such as the materialist/idealist dispute; the subjective/objective dichotomy, and a general honesty one can have when asserting complex and intractable issues, not the least of which is whether consciousness precedes matter; and whether the teleological argument has any veracity...To me, it's all problematic.
I'm a modernist through and through so I value empiricism and scientific epistemology, but I also have to consider a lifetime of personal 'spiritual' experiences. So, practically it makes me sympathetic​ to atheist worldviews while personally being quite open to alternative non-materialist cosmologies. Having said that, I again think we need to be honest in what we are espousing and it seems to me ura-soul is espousing neo-Advaita Vedanta​....That is Hinduism and it asserts consciousness precedes matter! A claim I'd be quite happy about but one I can't endorse fully considering my respect and conditioning by modernity. Again, I consider myself an *Agnostic Gnostic, or at least that is one of my core leanings.....Wilberian Post-metaphysics is another influence but I've spent​ a long time disputing the veracity of Ken's idiosyncratic spiritual arrogance.

  • this paradox could be the result of aperspectival cognition, see Gebser.....