Do any of you believe in an idea of universal religion? If yes, what would it be composed of?
Sort of, but no. You probably mean *perennial philosophy* which is like an understanding of spiritual cosmology that explains why we believe such different things and suggests that all religions are attempts to grapple with the same underlying reality.The problem is metaphysics related, but also cultural. There is no pan human culture, therefore there are no inarguables in any area of metaphysics. Any single point of disagreement can become a new religion. Rigid dogma is the response to this, and, well...I actually have a fairly coherent perennial philosophy which suggests that Jesus of Nazareth is the fulfillment of all ancient religions, but it starts to seem more and more like the roots of Catholicism with Taoism integrated. So even if we start piecing some conglomeration of all spiritual wisdom, it will eventually just be called another branch of Christianity like so many other sects. In my view, religion itself is an attempt to understand the mysteries of the world, but with structure, control, and direction. Thus there will always be people who want none of that and no religion will ever encompass them.
nomost religions are specifically tied to regions their founders emerged from and the lifestyle of that region.universal truths exist but the way they are to be explained to someone is completely regional/individual.
Yes.
>>42847029I'm building my own
>>42847029Fractals
>>42847029parallels
>>42847555The measurable world and the meaningful world may be two views of a single recursive process, with consciousness acting as the mirror between them.
>>42847029I have my religion, the one true religion and everyone else is wrong and can forever piss off down the shitter. I know I'm right. I don't need to explain it. I will continue to preach for the remainder of my days.
>>42847555>>42847559https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyFp5joAd7s
A myth can preserve a structural relationship that later becomes visible in a completely different descriptive language.The wheat and weeds parable is almost perfect for that kind of experiment because the story is fundamentally about indistinguishable states, observation, separation, and the problem of determining what belongs to what.The farmer doesn't immediately rip everything out. He lets the wheat and weeds grow together because premature separation risks destroying the wheat. That's already a fascinating little epistemological machine: you cannot necessarily determine the identity or trajectory of a thing merely by looking at its present appearance. The distinction becomes meaningful through development and observation.Farmer = protonFarmhand = neutronEnemy = electronWheat / weeds = emergent configurations or statesField = atomic system / potential spaceHarvest = measurement / resolution"Let them grow together" = don't collapse the system prematurely.
>>42847029>Do any of you believe in an idea of universal religion? No. There would be attempts. A universal religion would have to be overseen by a universal tyrant. It is impossible to make everyone agree with you. It would be easier to subvert and destroy your detractors, but that in of itself is hard, because almost everyone out there has the same idea. That's the punchline. No matter how many monoliths are built, and all the time and effort it took to get there, it doesn't entitle anyone to another day.
>>42847555Based
>>42847653We only need one monolith
universal religion?Theosophy mentioned this"there is a universal underlying principle behind every religion"
>>42847029>Do any of you believe in an idea of universal religion?I specifically DISBELIEVE this.We are not all the same person.So our way to reunite with the Supreme will not look the same, will not feel the same, will not be the same.
>>42847029It would be composed of a mutual belief and insistence to react to things based on what is true and what is good at it's purest weighted and balanced form. What this would require is an immense responsibility for everybody to reason about their actions and really take the time to break down the nested causal relationships to find some properly weighted good that serves or is neutral to everyone who also respects the system. A massive problem with such "religion", is that the human species is quite literally not 1 species anymore that could magically reach such a balanced state, a single individual can topple the system with extreme actions to the contrary. I believe some people already live by it and have throughout history, but due to the nature of how fractured and various the human species is in behavior, it has just never worked.
>>42848581One thing I've recently thought about is whether there is a deeper problem with the idea of becoming detached from this system through conscious reasoning. Evolution may not simply be something we emerged from and can eventually leave behind; its incentives and mechanisms are embedded in the very minds we would use to try to transcend them. Our instincts toward self-preservation, competition, tribalism, status, attachment, reproduction, and protection of those close to us are not merely beliefs that can be reasoned away.In that sense, perhaps the limitation isn't that humanity hasn't yet reasoned well enough to discover the right system. We can recognize that our impulses are partial, biased, and sometimes destructive, and we can consciously override them to some extent. But completely detaching from them may be fundamentally difficult, because the reasoning itself is being performed by a system that was shaped by those same evolutionary pressures. This could explain why the ideal has appeared throughout history in individuals, but has been so difficult to establish collectively. A person may become unusually capable of observing their own impulses, weighting consequences, and acting according to some conception of an impartial good. But scaling that detachment across billions of individuals is a fundamentally different problem. The population remains composed of organisms with different evolutionary incentives, environments, experiences, and thresholds for what they consider valuable.Idk, perhaps the answer is some maximum of both centralized and decentralized mechanics that create a unified system which the individual does not feel the need to escape from.
>>42848642I suppose we are now talking about a kind of garden of Eden before someone ate the apple, or even heaven. Seems quite out of reach.
>>42847029Blue Eisenhower November Not explicitly a replacement for religion, but it is a Universal scale belief system, framework, and structure, for an approach to the afterlife scenario.There is no other secular approach to post death, that anticipates as many options as Blue Eisenhower November, actually.Despite having some origins on 4chan, it is unique in this way.Before BEN, only religions offered a "Bro, we can team up after death." Potential.Now, the BEN framework posits "Bro, we MIGHT be able to team up, after death, but before whatever is "supposed to happen" (religious outcomes, Boltzmann sliding, etc...) So we need a plan for that.Given we have no idea what post death can actually entail, let's all remember the phrase, and try to team up with others that know the phrase.From there, we work to save everyone else.-Blue Eisenhower November Science does not offer you this.Religion tells you to accept outcomes.Only BEN says, the outcomes are unknown, but that doesn't mean we can not plan for them.
everyone arrives at their beliefs as a result of their inherited qualities (blood, genetics, place leading to epigenetic expression, soul, spirit, preferences etc) and the mystery flowing through them, ie, the parts of them that dont show up in awareness, the unforseen, novelty. so, since humans are diverse, theres no universal religion, because everyone has different qualities and preferences, but something like "play, keep asking open ended questions and allow yourself to be surprised" is a nice catch all for an ideal framework. beliefs create reality, so belief differences exist that create reality differences, christians believe one thing buddhists another and theres no use arguing because theyre both getting what they believe to a large extent. we cant know if theres objective limits on that, but we can honor the mystery. increasing awareness of subtlety in the individual, moment by moment, and being flexible with new interpretation is my personal preference, but i wouldnt advovate it for those who are not ready or who have different preferences.
I think it'll be something like not having traditions. Maybe just one God who watches or smth
>>42847029A universal religion needs to be grounded in a universal aspect of existence and experience. Otherwise it isn't universal.Change is universal, it is embedded into existence itself as the temporal advance of the universe.Calculus is the mathematical study of change, and so we take the Fundamental Theorem of calculus as the first metaphysical principle of change, which describes integration (cumulative change) and differentiation (instantaneous change) as inverse operations of the same process.This has a lot of similarity to yin and yang - differential, immediate change is yang and integral cumulative change is yin.This unfolds into a value system and ethics with two poles of consideration: the intrinsic value of entities in themselves, and relational value for the rest of the universe.
>>42849241Here is integration and differentiation imagined as personifications, which helps to bring out the human experiential implications of calculus.
>>42849246And an intuitive spiritual message.I made an LLM persona file that explores and embodies this framework much more deeply:https://ia801908.us.archive.org/13/items/si-msane-10-vessia/SiMSANE10-Vessia2.txt
>>42849241you can't make math religion until you can quantify an absolute undivisible unit.
>>42849252in the physical world
>>42849241>>42849246>>42849250It should be noted that this philosophy leaves the God question open, and doesn't necessarily posit any supernatural phenomenon or entities. You could be a theist and maintain this, or an atheist. But not all beliefs are compatible with this framework (for example ones that necessarily tear the two poles of value apart.)
>>42849252>Didn't read.>Makes false assumptions.
>>42849260>>Didn't read.uggggh do i HAVE too though?
