Worship

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wesmorris, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    I have those kinds of respect. I really admire and dig lots of people. There's generally something sort of awe inspiring about of.. hmm... guesstimating 1/3 of the people I get to talk to longer than 5 minutes. Can't tell if that's high or low. Hmm. Regardless, I'm generally pretty engaging and warm. People generally find me rather amusing IRL. I relate well to most, but you know how it is: the disembodied text version of me, well - I can't really imagine what that's like for other people. I'm TONS better at actual communication in person, generally speaking. Though I do tend to ramble on about obscure philosophical tangents.

    I don't consider "digging stuff about life (people, phenomenon, etc.)" to be worship.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845

    Actually, I think M-theory type explanations seem like the most valid explanation of existence. Multi-dimensional branes and such.

    That's not nothing, it's something rather difficult to comprehend (not saying I do clearly at all, it just seems to fit with all the other stuff I think).

    tangent: I think the behavior of electrons alone (that they become a particle but only when observed) is indicative of multi-dimensional space, but I'm not sure I understand it clearly enough to reach that conclusion.

    God is a boring, traditional, cave-man theory (as I see it). That said, I respect people's right to believe in it wholeheartedly.

    I would be on the side of religion if atheist nazis tried to ban or harm people for their beliefs, and vice-versa. I'd probably risk my life to save a religious person from persecution at the hands of well, anyone. I haven't been in that situation exactly so it's hard to say if I'd be brave enough to actually do it, but I'm sure circumstances could be construed in which I would (and I don't mean a gun to my head, I mean mood, obviousness, chance of success, etc.).

    That said, worship is still generally disgusting to me. Oh, and that sign thing above is pretty stupid propaganda.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    My own dogma is generally "you don't appreciate what you don't earn".

    Hehe, it's about humanity damnit - not your dog. I agree in the sense that pleasure without conscience could be construed as the path to cruelty.

    Well knowledge without character leads to 2 eh? Well, basically anyway, at least I think that's in line with his point. Knowledge without character is like Mengela or however you spell that evil nazi's name.

    I think the prime motivater should necessarily be "a fair exchange of goods and/or services", if that counts as moral. I don't like using the term "moral" there because because many people seem to clash there. "fair" is probably just as complicated, but seems more pertinent to me.

    Well I think it's easily supported that any effort directed from one's "zero state" is sacrifice, but unfortunately human sacrifice seems to be rather popular amongst the jihadis and the myriad of other murdering cocksuckers out there. I just can't get past the "worship" part on this one.


    Indeed! It can be in fact, quite lovely! lol.

    The repercussions of slight variations in defining words is rather awe inspiring to me and sort of lovely and frightening, frustrating and cool at the same time. It's freakin beautiful though, as it's so bloody human.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    of course you're not ... until you happen to walk past a mirror



    not at all

    its the nature of illusion that its quite accommodating
     
  8. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Ah, revealing your nasty streak eh?

    So in your mind, I MUST be worshipping something, so obviously it's ME.

    Honestly, I'm far too flawed to be an object of worship.

    I think I am though, something that can be appreciated and sometimes awed at least a smidge. Other times I don't feel as worthy of appreciation or any form of awe. Such is the flow.


    Project much? Think about it, seriously. How smugly do you label me smug, sheep?

    It's okay, I love you anyway - but stop being a douche.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2009
  9. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    How did you earn that sunset you appreciated or your kids?
    As far as I can tell we are just dogs with a lot of extra mental hoopla. But think of a child. Out playing in the mud at age three. At what age should we start mulling over ethics when we play? Must I contemplate ethics when I play peekaboo with my newborn?

    If one is cruel. But if one isn't....


    free market capitalism seems not to be based on notions of fairness, but rather 'what can I get?' and if I got it it was OK by definition regardless of what you got and how you felt about it. IOW I need never notice that you have an internal life. IOW solipsism.

    If you notice that others are alive, if you have built in empathy - which is not at all the same thing to me as conscience - you are affected directly by the shit you pull. Conscience to me is added thought. A little voice evaluating us. A built in distrust. It begs the question. The semi sociopath and the solipsist can add in a little voice that comments on their actions, and I suppose this might be good. But if you do notice other people and are affected by their reactions, I see this added little commenter with the whip as rather superfluous.
     
  10. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Me neither. Even if it is extreme. It's funny, I feel the definitions are missing important elements when it comes to 'worship'.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058

    You didn't earn your existence, but you appreciate it anyway?
     
  12. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    The comment was about wealth - I was thinking of material wealth (command of resources) - in which existence is a given.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2009
  13. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    I was thinking of material wealth.

    I can earn a sunset with my capacity to see and go somewhere at the right time. The kids? Well, biological imperative I suppose.

    I prefer "complicated apes", but yes...

    NO! Uhm... well okay.

    YES! Okay no, not really. It depends on if it occurs to you to do so. Who am I to say? But in trying to imagine what might have been intended by the original statement "pleasure without conscience", I might think if you had no conscience, you'd have no real joy in playing peekaboo. I'm basically a hedonist though, but I have a conscience. I don't want to screw anyone who doesn't want to be screwed ya know?

    I don't think the flat statement is applicable to most people. I think most people are sometimes cruel, sometimes not. If you were cruel and feel no guilt, you have no conscience?

    True, but free market capitalism is recognition of the jungle underlying any form of economic activity.

    Meh, if the individuals undertaking the economic activities are hollow wretches, yes. However, they can choose to recognize the humanity of those with whom they interact - and act accordingly.

    A built in distrust of even one's own motivation?

    Hmm, to me that seems to invite smugness. I don't think he has to have a whip, he can just be your buddy - double checking you for you... (as long as the bastard doesn't wear out his welcome) I do think that for some it would be superfluous. However, I do think it quite easy to screw someone over out of greed or contempt before you realize what you did, and maybe they shield their reaction, etc. I think it's as important to question my own motivations as I would someone else's, well.. some of the time at least. Well, if you're curious to understand yourself anyway. Perhaps it's an attempt to expose denial, the most common tool in the mental arsenal by which to rape and pillage and still get a good night's rest.

    But then again as you noted above, complicated apes and all. Sometimes I think we "do what we do" and all the words we use to justify or examine it are just rationalization IOW justification IOW mental mastubation.
     
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    by default there is something that generates a type of awe or central basis for existence (in fact many atheist philosophers cite this as the evidence for a constructed god).

    My point is that a gross materialist doesn't have too many options.

    Perhaps you might want to argue about how the paraphernalia is distinct from more traditional types of worship, but the act remains in the same category.




    I think you misunderstand.

    Self satisfaction is something even available to a mass murderer. IOW in the whole scene of attributes that generate a truthful/moral/advanced state of being, it says absolutely nothing for as long as it doesn't reference issues outside of the individual.

    :shrug:
     
  15. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    OK.
    And most of that 'complicated' is just fluff. If we could listen in to the mind of someone else, Nobel Prize winner, amazing painter, it would probably be as interesting as reading a phone book, with rare exceptions when an interesting thought burst through. If we played back to them a recording of theirmental hoopla, they'd probably leap out a window after 5 minutes.

    Sure, but do you need an inner cop to prevent you from screwing someone who doesn't want it. Some of the religions think so. People who tend to stress their being rational and not controlled by their emotions think so. I don't. I mean some people obviously need some rigid inner structure to prevent cruelty. But then I wonder if the solution is not part of the problem.

    Yes, a conscience is a systematic version of this. I think it is counterproductive. The funny thing is that non-religious people sometimes say that the religious cannot be moral since the follow rules given to them by this outside entity - whose existence is a moot issue in this particular context. But most ''rational' secular humanints do not trust themselves either and have an internalized entity set up to suppress, control and monitor their impulses, emotions, etc. A systematic 'I cannot be trusted' that would in form make a religouis preacher proud. The particular rules may be different, but the chronic self distrust and suppression is a direct parallel.

    An internalized monotheism - and I think this is literally the case - with a judgmental 'god'.



    Honestly, I don't think most people who would assert their voice is a buddy are really listening to the tone of voice of that voice. The way it uses threat and implication about what urges and thoughts MEAN is also not being noticed. Could be possible and that would be good, but I think what you described is rare.
    Sure, I do. But with the long term goal of handing over not just the reins but the whole horse to myself, and the fading out of that proctor.

    And a conscience is an extremely good tool to set up denial and an even greater need for denial. It is causal in there also.

    Precisely, and a conscience as far as I can tell, just makes people work hard at being skilled at rationalization. And when they suppress themselves, adds to the feeling of entitlement.

    Think of the damage done by the people who peek out their windows at their neighbors and cluck their tongues. (hint: think of what they did in Nazi Germany and Stasi ruled east Germany.)
     
  16. decons scrambled egg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    "Worship without sacrifice as a blunder", does not underline the need to worship, or need to sacrifice.

    It simply puts that if one claims to believe in an idea, s/he needs to measure it on oneself, not others. This is the only way to test the validity of the idea, as well as the sincerity of the person who claims to believe it.

    Lack of sincerity is a blunder, I think Gandhi means, because it results as people using belief systems to control others.
     
  17. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,193
    interesting. this is how i am wont to interpret the sentiment as well, but i think we may be stretching the definitions of both "worship" and "sacrifice" a bit.

    but even when working within the confines of accepted definitions:
    ------------------
    wor·ship (wûrshp)
    n.
    1.
    a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
    b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
    2. Ardent devotion; adoration.
    3. often Worship Chiefly British Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.
    v. wor·shiped or wor·shipped, wor·ship·ing or wor·ship·ping, wor·ships
    v.tr.
    1. To honor and love as a deity.
    2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere1.
    v.intr.
    1. To participate in religious rites of worship.
    2. To perform an act of worship.
    -----------------------------------
    sac·ri·fice (skr-fs)
    n.
    1.
    a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.
    b. A victim offered in this way.
    2.
    a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.
    b. Something so forfeited.
    3.
    a. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value.
    b. Something so relinquished.
    c. A loss so sustained.
    4. Baseball A sacrifice bunt or sacrifice fly.
    v. sac·ri·ficed, sac·ri·fic·ing, sac·ri·fic·es
    v.tr.
    1. To offer as a sacrifice to a deity.
    2. To forfeit (one thing) for another thing considered to be of greater value.
    3. To sell or give away at a loss.
    v.intr.
    1. To make or offer a sacrifice.
    2. Baseball To make a sacrifice bunt or sacrifice fly.
    -------------------------------------------------

    in short, worship=ardent devotion and adoration; sacrifice=forfeiture of something of value--couldn't this "thing" of value simply be one's time, focus, and sincerity? IOW to actually "mean" it (whatever that means), rather than simply "going through the motions."

    an example:

    the inhabitants of summerisle receive a bountiful harvest this season. sure, they did everything that they possibly could to ensure such, but they have little control over such factors as weather. and so they all get dressed up in costumes, gather their musical instruments, prepare food and drink, and make merry--and this is their "worship." the "sacrifice" is simply the time and energy they expend in doing such, and that they feel "obliged" to do such in earnest. is this so objectionable?

    of course, had the harvest not been so good, they would had to have sacrificed a fine virgin to the wicker man. i can see how this might be problematic for some.
     
  18. decons scrambled egg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    Other six of Gandhi's Seven Blunders of the World are wealth, pleasure, knowledge, commerce, science and politics. This "blunder" is the one that implies religions and belief systems as direct or indirect causes of violence in the world.

    Therefore I assume the term "worship" is a shorthand word for any kind of idea or idol that requires its subjects to believe without a material reason.

    If the worship requires a believing self, so would the "sacrifice". Since sacrifice requires something valuable and nobody can exactly know what is valuable for others, it should involve something valuable for the "worshipper". A worship becomes a blunder, or a factor of violence when a worshipper tries to sacrifice other people's valuable things. If one violently sacrifices oneself, then it would be the end of "worship". Thus I can assume that Gandhi's use of "sacrifice" does not involve any kind of violence, but definitely a "self".

    I think you are right about "sacrifice" involving "time and energy", aka life. It keeps the worshipper's feet on the ground. The sacrifice should constantly force the worshipper to reexamine the compatibility of the belief in everyday life. If the sacrificed thing, let's say "time", is put on a routine and given up easily, it would not be valuable or a sacrifice anymore. It should be a "time" that is always valuable. Like present time.

    Thus, stretching the meanings as general philosophy as possible, I can say that what Gandhi means by "sacrifice" is the belief, idea, idol itself. Nothing is more valuable to a worshipper than the "worshipped" itself. Sacrifice is the constant questioning of the object of worship.

    If one is in constant process of questioning the belief, one cannot lead others to death based on the belief.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2009
  19. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Why would you want to worship a war mongering sadomasochistic egotistical rapist any way.
     
  20. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Are there Republicans posting here?
     
  21. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845

    The question is: Why worship anything?

    Seriously.

    It's demeaning.

    Respecting stuff, cool. Worshiping stuff: uncool.

    What is the gain when you worship something? What's the evolutionary function of worship? I'd say crowd control more than anything. Leverage I suppose. But it seems like you'd have to be manipulated into doing it.

    Do people just up and start worshiping one day, or are they taught to do so in order to continue some tradition of beliefs?

    Well and in that, I suppose it's a good thing, at least to the manipulators trying to control the herd. So it's a practice utilized by an individual to prop up something to deity-like status, and it's a tool used by manipulators to keep that ass in check.

    Sounds fun!

    It's too bad we can't run the same lives over and over in different circumstances to see if they'd worship were they not trained to do it.

    Crap I dunno I'm tired and rambling.
     
  22. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Well, the audio of someone's inner voice would probably be mostly boring. However, if you could actually see/feel/somehow encompass their thoughts from their perspective while simultaneously maintaining your own identity, I bet I'd find it enthralling. Calling it fluff is like calling junk DNA junk! Seriously I think it would be overwhelming and wow. Perhaps frightening as hell and incredibly foreign. Possibly horribly disturbing.



    Probably. The cop blows the whistle if one is "caught up in a moment". Sure it would be better if it weren't necessary, but I don't think we're as civilized as we like to think we are, so yeah. Inner cops are probably a good thing. I couldn't intentionally harm someone without being "caught up in a moment". But if so I have no idea what I'm capable of doing.

    Oh surely it can be construed as such, but I think the real problem is that we're actually just a bunch of animals, trying and generally succeeding in being "civilized", but under many conditions just wild creatures running amok.

    Hmm... you're so negative.

    Lol, I think you should be mistrusted by yourself until you prove to yourself you shouldn't be at least for the most part, then your conscience can be a pal. I surmize that without it, things would be much more natural and much more dangerous and less predictable, with a whole lot more cruelty than we have now - and now we still have a LOT a cruel bastards it would seem.

    Hmmm. I think that's taking it too far but is perhaps often the actual case. Sometimes you shouldn't trust your conscience - as it's not as pure as it would have you believe. Skepticism! Supposedly, you should always trust "god". Perhaps supposedly you're always supposed to trust your conscience too. Oh shit I'm just messing around here and hmm. Yes I see. Perhaps you're mostly right and I subverted this arrangement for myself by learning to forgive myself for being a dirty ape. It bothers me once in a while but I quash it with the thought that for instance, we all have to shit - no matter how gross it is or how much it fucking stinks. Ack. Gross. Shit or die.

    There you have it.

    Yeah I suppose I long ago co opted the system by stealing from buddy jesus, borrowing his wonder triplet powers to forgive myself for being an idiot sometimes, etc. Now I mostly just find it funny.

    Seems that it happens eventually if by nothing else, death.

    True. I think though that denial is common to any "firm" system of morality. Any time you have expectations and cannot accept the outcome, denial can be the path of least effort or minimal damage to world-view.

    Well learning to rationalize is at least good mental excercise!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I think though that it's inevitable and could only be avoided were we to abandon language and return to the bush. Even then I suppose it might be inevitable, well no perhaps not if we abandoned language completely and just lived as apes. Don't know if we could do that though even if we wanted to. Perhaps accidentally or incidentally.

    Such is true, but it all seems like just part of how brains work socially to me. Could be my limited data pool.
     
  23. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Well said however I do worship my wife after all she puts up with me.
     

Share This Page