Friday, September 12, 2014
Nature doesn't like 'spiritual'
Following up on yesterday's half-formed thought. I knew there was something missing but couldn't spot it. Now I've spotted it, with the help of some RCR columns about 'spirituality' and 'mindfulness'.
Yesterday I said that without civilization we are reduced to Raw Nature, which is nothing more than gonads and bullying. F=ma. Force = mass * attractiveness. No room for subjunctives or potentials.
In other recent items I've made the point that the rules of culture and religion are experimentally observed products of Nature, not arbitrary or theological.
Contradiction? Yes, as stated. But I already made the point in the earlier items. Forgot it in my dismal mood yesterday. Here's the difference, and here's why 'spirituality' fails.
Nature does give us definite feedback on bad behavior, but the feedback is not always individual, and when it is individual it's too late to matter.
This is where priests and prophets and religious structures come in. They make long-term observations of large groups, and preserve the observations over many generations while refining them.
Books like Genesis and Leviticus, and later testaments like the Koran and hadiths, are the logbooks and reports of these long and broad observations of human experimentation.
If you insist on being 'spiritual but not religious', you are tossing aside all of this painstaking and costly SCIENTIFIC observation. You may be objectively observing your own internal and social feedback, but Nature isn't giving you anywhere near the full picture.
To get past the paywall and experience the full picture of Nature's purposes, you must be 'religious'.
Labels: Grand Blueprint
¶ 2:40 AM
