h a l f b a k e r yCrust or bust.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
In my simple view of religion it is a social mechanism to make people work and live together to make something more, something more complex. It is totally valid and we are here now because of it.
No's are quite simple and in the past have served well but killing something, banning or ridding something
out of sight and out of mind is quite shortsighted.
So where do we go now.
Religions couldn't predict the technological advances and the social change those 'advances' make. What about a religion that pedestals complexity? Makes incorporating the conflicting x into the society for the benefit of all. It is sort of webbing everything so it has a valid beneficial place. An interneting of all and all for the universal complexity.
Of course 'Hue'manity is messy so although idealistic, this will always be only a framework to work by. Religions of today would have to adjust their works by complexing up of their teachings and beneficialising their nos.
Of course, each no problem is going to get exponentially more problematic as it it added to the complex. It will take people with large minds and hopefully some quantum computing. Sorry starting to sound Borgish now.
There will always be free will and complexity is going to happen anyway so it is probably better to ride it beneficially.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I think I understood this up until "Makes incorporating...". |
|
| |
[ ] pending clarification. |
|
| |
There's a general problem with proposing any religion as a means
to an end, viz., sooner or later people will notice that you're doing
it, and make some ontological economies. |
|
| |
[Max] it's all about walls and fences. The true God, the complexity of all, has no fences. Incorporating the next fence in the personal view means you can see a bigger panorama. |
|
| |
But this made me wonder if 'God' gave away free will, can the universal entity still see all? Can we produce strangeness even God doesn't see over the fence? |
|
| |
[pertinax] No personal attempt at ends. Unless my subconscious knows something I don't. |
|
| |
Don't worry about your subconscious, [wjt]. There's no such thing
as the subconscious mind. There are, of course, unconscious
processes which influence, and perhaps control, our conscious
thoughts, but thinking of these processes as a mind is a Bad
Idea. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, regarding ends, I thought you were proposing a
religion of complexity as a means to the end of keeping up with a
particular conception of where society is going. Is that not what
you're proposing? |
|
| |
Isn't the trinity analogous to a 3-body problem, and (if so) by extension, a concrete example of religious complexity? |
|
| |
[zen_tom] Yes but analogy usually rests on detail. There's no limit to complexity. Eventually we will get complex enough to make physical, some mind tool to solve the three body problem. I don't think it will also resolve the trinity. |
|
| |
[pertinax] Well a religion with gaining complexity, in whatever form, that doesn't flame out, reverting back to next to no complexity. Probably just a religion codifying life trying to survive, really. An overview rather than a forced path. |
|
| |
So ultimately no personal gain that can be identified, other than the glowing idea humanity can and will spread throughout the 'God', complexity willing. |
|
| |
Yes, imaginary numbers might just be what religion is
composed of. |
|
| |
Lessee... if God is imaginary, i. Jesus is human +
imaginary, 1+i, the Holy Spirit is imaginary also. i*i*(1+i) =
-1-i. Something about those negative signs seems satanic.
Must be a different equation required. Bitcoin mining
perhaps? |
|
| |
Ah, I think I see the source of the confusion here; you're reading
"end" as "selfish end", whereas I intended it to refer to any
desideratum, whether selfish or not. |
|
| |
11. Thou shalt not create paradoxes by travelling back in time and killing your own grandfather. Note that Hitler didn't have any surviving kids; also, Pontius Pilate was a bit of a prick. |
|
| |
//desideratum// If I set up a system where I have no control then really I have no desideratum other than making my personal choices, like everyone with whatever they believe. |
|
| |
I could set a system that levers advantages for myself, above everyone's standard desideratum, but that would sort of be against the primary essence of all religions. With a set amount of resources, my gain is someone else's loss. |
|
| |