Metaphysical Religion

I was reading the review of Keys of Gnosis by Robert Bolton on the Integral Tradition Publishing site, and it had an interesting insight. That insight was what is called Metaphysical Religion. Here is the section of the review that spurned my interest, “For a long time now, religion in the West has been polarized between a democratic kind of faith meant for simple believers, and divine mysteries so high that hardly anyone can claim to know much about them. The vital connecting link between them, that of metaphysical religion, is all but lost…”.

What he exactly means by this, I do not know entirely because I have not read the book, but nevertheless has given me ideas, and also strongly interested me in this purchasing this book. Even though Robert Bolton seems sympathetic to a sort of Platonic-Christian outlook, I assert that there is a problem in Christianity that comes from accepting an idea of a “metaphysical religion”. Christianity is a positivistic religion, and by that I mean that its focus is on supposed events in history and the dogma associated with them. Christianity asserts that man fell from grace through the sin of a historical figure called Adam, and that a historical figure called Jesus died on a cross, and rose from the grave three days later, and faith in this Jesus figure forms the essence of this faith. This is asserted in the Bible itself, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain”, from 1st Corinthians 15:14, and “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins”, from 1st Corinthians 15:17. Also it seems that a very literal belief in the creation story is needed, because of Adam’s role in all of this, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”, from Romans 5:12. This creates a religious outlook which is so superstitious that it is tantamount to extreme credulity. There are many epistemological problems associated with miracles. There is no criteria to determine the veracity of them, since they go against what we know of the laws of nature, and since miracles are common in many religions, there is no reason to believe the Jesus miracle over others, except if you were to create the epistemological conditions centered around supposed Christian history, and thus be engaged in horrible question begging. There is also no reason to believe that our original ancestors were Adam and Eve over those purported in other creation myths, and the creation story in Genesis is ridiculous, but necessary to believe in for this Adam character to be given the necessary significance. I can go further into this, but for the sake of brevity, I feel my point has been made. This is where I like the idea of a “metaphysical religion”.

From the perspective of Advaita Vedanta, it is the metaphysical principles of Maya and Avidya which are the foundation. From the perspective of Buddhism, the metaphysical and phenomenological outlook in the paticca sammupada correlate very strongly with the Transcendental Idealism of Kant and Schopenhauer, which is far superior to the materialism that is still the common viewpoint. The runes of Nordic mysticism can be seen as extra dimensional principles which manifest themselves into this reality through natural processes. The only possible critique would be of speculative metaphysics, but then everybody outside of Hume could be accused of this, and that form of skepticism leads into many problems. The reality is that these metaphysical principles allow our consciousness to grow and develop; our consciousness is in the process of always appropriating more and more knowledge, rather then coming up to the roadblock of superstition and credulity that is in the Christian religion. This I believe is the reason for the interest in Eastern and pagan religions, that being religions based upon metaphysical principles that the intelligence of man has an affinity towards rather than supposed historical events that clearly are absurd, and repulsive to the intelligence of man.

Technology, Good or Bad?

There is a spurious view that an essential aspect of the Pagan Weltanschauung is a “Back to the Earth” philosophy that rejects technology and a lifestyle that incorporates technology. That being said, I do assert there are two characteristics of this “Back to the Earth” philosophy that are essential to the Pagan Weltanschauung that can be incorporated very well with technology. The first is a rejection of the Last Man ideal in which comfort, ease, and pleasure are valued more than struggle, overcoming and excellence. In a technologically advanced society it is possible for people to live a lifestyle where they can have a sedated existence in relative comfort while they are easily entertained. A good example of this is an episode of Friends where the two characters Joey and Chandler sit on their lazy boys then order pizza and have it delivered to their neighbors apartment so they do not have to leave their chairs, and then cancel their order of pop out of fear that they will have to go to the bathroom and thus be forced to get up off of their chairs. This would be impossible in a society where they are out in the cold and they must be hunt or gather their food or die. There is also the aspect of technology that allows easy access to information, thus helping people increase in knowledge. There is also the aspect of technology that allows for the creation of gymnasiums and superior nutrition so that people might attain a higher degree of athleticism. Right now the fact that I am at my computer with internet access gives me access to a virtually endless source of knowledge, and also the fact that I have a proper lighting so that I can read this information helps as well. This would not be possible if I was in a cold hut in a society where candles are luxury due to a paucity of them. It is also a great boon to have access to a gymnasium with a good weightlifting facility and cardiovascular training equipment. I am also fond of the fact that nutritional labels list the macronutrient profile of the food, that I can buy a multivitamin that has an amount of vitamins and minerals that could not obtained from whole food sources, and that I can purchase supplements that make my brain and body work better. I know a possible response can be technology created hydrogenated fats which are extremely unhealthy. This is true, but hydrogenated fats were created out of economic concerns to have fats that have a longer shelf life. It is not a question of technology here, but a responsible use of technology. Technology has also created protein powders that are essential to a serious bodybuilding program. The reality is that technology has created the conditions to achieve a physical and mental excellence that could not be achieved in more primitive conditions, even though it has created the conditions to allow for the Last Man. The evil is not technology itself, but a cultural value system that utilizes it for purely economic concerns and promotion of base utility.

The second point is that “living close to Nature” will open up the deeper aspects of reality through an aesthetic appreciation of nature. I agree with the feature of this view that nature has a deeper aspect that speaks of forms and principles that transcend our common perspective. This is why a walk through a forested area, gazing at the night sky, beholding the expansive sea are experiences that I feel to be good for the development of our being. I just would like to have these experiences after a nutritious meal and a hot shower after a good night sleep in a bed. There is a possible response that technology is destroying our environment, and thus depleting it of its aesthetic value. My response would be for the promotion of a proper use of technology that does not abuse our environment, but uses our environment intelligently and also cherishes it for its aesthetic value.

Christopher Langan's challenge

I was listening to an interview of Christopher Langan on youtube, and I must say that he has some very interesting ideas. I am in total agreement with him as to redefining and reshaping what it means to be human. I am saddened by the view of man that is prevalent in modern society as a consumer who only exists for toil and amusement. This idea of man needs to be overcome. I am also in agreement with the idea that we need to develop a more advanced ethic. I will go into this in a later article, possibly the next one, so I will halt on developing this concept of an advanced ethic. What I want to focus on in this posting is his challenge of intelligence. He states very clearly, that if someone states that they are more intelligent than him, he would like them to present their view of reality. He would ask the other person how sophisticated a picture of reality he developed, all of what he was holding in his mind simultaneously, and what he could construct with these ideas. The question then arises, am I capable of understanding his view of reality, and he is he capable of understanding mine. I also believe that implicit in this challenge of sophistication is not just complexity, but also consistency, since an inconsistent outlook of reality is not the hallmark of great intelligence, no matter how many grand ideas are thrown out. All of what a person is able to hold in his mind must be coupled with the ability to develop them consistently. I like this challenge. This is how I will approach people in determining their intelligence. I would like to know their picture of reality. I would like to know their metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, theory of aesthetics, politics, economics, existential outlook, scientific outlook, etc.. You tell me yours, and I will tell you mine. Let us see who has a more sophisticated outlook.

I would like to state what I believe to be his argument. To use a computer analogy, he sees intelligence as the amount of human RAM and the quality of the human operating system. Imagine a computer that can run a multitude of applications that are very advanced versus a computer that can only run a couple, and has an operating system that cannot handle some of the more advanced programs. To apply this back to the human level, the simple tasks that involve normal everyday activity that make you functional in society do not require an “advanced computer”, but having a sophisticated view of reality does.