you're simply omitting the harmful & unhinged cult leader behavior of jesus, and don't provide any motivation why to design society based on these ancient texts. you're also presenting an arbitrarily (bias? bad faith? idk...) constrained solution space.
how about understanding-based problem solving? let's see what explains differences between humans, and let's examine whether concepts like 'desert' make sense at all. why would we design society so that humans with a higher rank on competence hierarchies access vastly disproportionately more resources? why exactly would we blur the line between dominance & non-dominance hierarchies? it seems to me that unless one is willing to accept magical (non-mechanistic) (non)explanations for differences between humans, luck clearly swallows all, meaning that no one controls the dynamic gene-environment complex that constitutes us. so your 'spiritual hierarchy' can go fuck. it's just a sophistic way to manipulate people into accepting nonsensical dominance hierarchies.
“The question is: what are the ideal relations between unequal humans? By asking this question, we’ve placed the top of the human hierarchy below the moral hierarchy—the flesh below the spirit.”
There are connotations here that I either misunderstand or do not follow. I am not sure what is meant.
There are many related questions. What do particular persons think are the best relations between unequal humans? How do they aggregate their thoughts into a consensus or a social system? How fallible are they, and what sort of fault tolerance do their methods call for?
Ok that's a very useful progression of ideas, and beautifully wrapped up. It's interesting how the sense of (in)justice is inseparable from the hierarchy, like energy and matter.
Growing up as an atheist I've fought hard to hold onto my own moral compass. I refuse to jump ship but ironically I prefer the teachings of Jesus than Dawkins. Though of course there are plenty of good reasons to troll "Christianity".
Beginning with his first book The Spectrum of Consciousness Ken Wilber has been examining the various hierarchies/dimensions including the Spiritual which are intrinsic to the human condition.
So too with the author (Adi Da) who created the model of existence the details of which are described and explained in the reference below. The structures of the model were created on the basis of the authors direct experience of the human body-mind-complex, which is to say that he had the direct experience of such.
you're simply omitting the harmful & unhinged cult leader behavior of jesus, and don't provide any motivation why to design society based on these ancient texts. you're also presenting an arbitrarily (bias? bad faith? idk...) constrained solution space.
how about understanding-based problem solving? let's see what explains differences between humans, and let's examine whether concepts like 'desert' make sense at all. why would we design society so that humans with a higher rank on competence hierarchies access vastly disproportionately more resources? why exactly would we blur the line between dominance & non-dominance hierarchies? it seems to me that unless one is willing to accept magical (non-mechanistic) (non)explanations for differences between humans, luck clearly swallows all, meaning that no one controls the dynamic gene-environment complex that constitutes us. so your 'spiritual hierarchy' can go fuck. it's just a sophistic way to manipulate people into accepting nonsensical dominance hierarchies.
Great to see you've finally come around to Jesus, Steve
The nature of the farm has changed significantly from the 1900’s
A good series specifically on how it changed here
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKZSEBGrz5_lLHP4vSH4bIW4wiGCtUeLF&si=KpnilnSUUDkBsXws
that's why it's called a pecking order, not a pecking chaos
i think you will love this series discussing Christianity from a very non-church, rational perspective:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thedukereport/p/the-sermon-on-the-mount-as-a-tactical
https://open.substack.com/pub/thedukereport/p/in-the-beginning-was-the-operating
and there are several more posts from him. sadly, i haven't read them all, so i cannot give you a map of where to begin.
these two seem to be a good starting point to decide whether his thesis is interesting enough for further reading.
“The question is: what are the ideal relations between unequal humans? By asking this question, we’ve placed the top of the human hierarchy below the moral hierarchy—the flesh below the spirit.”
There are connotations here that I either misunderstand or do not follow. I am not sure what is meant.
There are many related questions. What do particular persons think are the best relations between unequal humans? How do they aggregate their thoughts into a consensus or a social system? How fallible are they, and what sort of fault tolerance do their methods call for?
Are you telling me there is a spiritual hierarchy and I need to deal with it? Fuck that.
Ok now I got that out, I will read the article.
Ok that's a very useful progression of ideas, and beautifully wrapped up. It's interesting how the sense of (in)justice is inseparable from the hierarchy, like energy and matter.
Growing up as an atheist I've fought hard to hold onto my own moral compass. I refuse to jump ship but ironically I prefer the teachings of Jesus than Dawkins. Though of course there are plenty of good reasons to troll "Christianity".
Beginning with his first book The Spectrum of Consciousness Ken Wilber has been examining the various hierarchies/dimensions including the Spiritual which are intrinsic to the human condition.
So too with the author (Adi Da) who created the model of existence the details of which are described and explained in the reference below. The structures of the model were created on the basis of the authors direct experience of the human body-mind-complex, which is to say that he had the direct experience of such.
http://www.integralworld.net/reynolds6.html
Check out this reference too
http://www.integralworld.net/reynolds18.html
I couldn't agree more.