An ~unusual~ Perspective on HOPE...

[namelesss]

Perhaps a unifying thread that runs through all religions, is that they all propagate the ‘madness’ of hope!
‘Hope’, something intimately egoPerspective. Which, oddly enough, most religions (at least outwardly) tend to denounce ego.
‘Ego’ seems no different than the ‘pride’ that most religions consider as (the only real) ‘sin’.
So, hmmmm, let me get this straight…, the ‘religious bodies’ are the typhoid Marys of the ‘sin’ that they claim is ‘evil’ and ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’… And it (‘hope’) spreads and seems to act like a virus. (Viral meme?)
Go to church (or temple or Mosque…), learn to ‘sin’…
Life can surely be a house of mirrors…
*__-

[statiktech]

I wrote a couple of posts recently that seem to address a very similar view-point; I thought they might be interesting or applicable here, if even for a segue into discussion…

[Note: I was addressing particular people in these posts, so please don’t take this as a lecture by any means]

There will come a day when you discover “God” is not the answer to everything, and you may even lower yourself enough to consider that we are animals - no special cause, no special purpose, no special savior just for us. Belief in a supreme being that creates, destroys, and actually feels emotion for us (humanity) is an immature thought of a maturing mind - one that is looking for answers. At it’s essence very innocent, yet extremely egoistic in beliefs like yours only justify man’s separation from his environment. That is to say, it gives reason to say “we are special because…”. I just want you to be aware that a day will come in which you will be forced to consider all of your unanswered questions, and the fact that we (humanity) may, in fact, not be special at all. “Good”, “Evil”, “God”, “Satan”, “redemption”, “salvation”, etc. are all concepts of human creation for little other reason than to instill “morality” and hope to the hopeless. Religion is man’s disgust with himself and the world incarnate - it is a reason to look beyond what we directly sense. When you realize this, and you probably will, do not turn your back on it. Question it, debate it, ponder it deeply and THEN come to your conclusion. At least then you can say you have experienced the true evil and despair in our existence and you will be justified in whatever conclusion you come to. Until then your sole scincerity in life will be a blind commitment to nothingness and death.

Religion is for the walking dead - the utter despair of the world. God then is a harbinger of despair that preaches hope. Hope, as an influence, is the essence of “evil” in my opinion, in that it is a primary means of deceiving oneself. I’d say death is more present in the living than in the deceased - their journey is complete. For us though, we live death every day.

I actually considered that my statement about hope being the essence of “evil” may be taken too generally, so I tried to note that I was talking specifically about hope as an influence - or, in other words, hope as a result of an influence. Unfortunately, my language did not quite capture the idea I was shooting for at the time, since influenced hope and hope as an influence are different in this context (in my opinion that is).

“… hope, as a result of an influence, being the essence of evil…” is far more accurate for what I was trying to convey. I immediately considered that hope can, of course, be positive - it feeds the will to survive, keeps people pressing forward, helps clear our minds of the torment in which we live, holds families together, etc. I totally agree with you there. However, I think that hope is a natural result of desire - you hope for what you desire in short. So, I figure if one can be influenced in such a way so as to bend his desires against those of another, the individual being influenced will, in turn, seek hope in the desires of those who influenced him. The catch is that we end up deceiving ourselves in the end.

For example: Say a man is sentenced to prison for the first time, but his stay is lengthy (maybe 15-20 years). Now let’s suppose this man is innocent of the crime which he was sentenced to prison for and his only thought is to get out. He knows he is innocent and believes, in himself, that his release is only a matter of time - so, he hits the legal books and has his family hire a mighty fine lawyer. After month’s of appeals, legal action, hearings, etc. little progress has been made but he still has hope that he will be released because of his innocence. Of course, open claims of innocence and threat of asserting legal action will most likely not get you far in prison, so this individual starts catching the attention of the staff & other inmates. Now he has gangs after him trying to get legal advice, other gangs after him for talking to their rivals, staff after him for spreading the hope of release; at which point threats ensue and violence seems inevitable. One day the warden walks into this individual’s cell and tells him “You will not leave this prison, nobody of authority believes you, the legal system is a hopeless, bottomless pit, and I will use my power to make sure you stay put as long as I see fit. You are at the mercy of those above you and your life is nothing here. I suggest you focus on your survival rather than your release as it will never happen.” Already demoralized, the imprisoned man hears and considers what the warden says, until he eventually accepts it as truth. He no longer hopes to be released early, just to survive until his release as dictated by the judicial system which wrongly imprisoned him. He has been convinced to shift his desires, and thus his hopes, simply by the will of someone he sees as commanding more power in society. The warden never says another word and the man sits and rots in prison for the remainder of his days. He could have been one book, or one phone call, away from fulfilling his initial, justified, desire. Instead he was influenced into self deception and that one talk with the warden caused a complete devaluation of his initial desire, and thus the loss of his original hope.

We, as members of society, accept the notion of desire(s) and hope(s) that have otherwise been foreign to us simply because the distribution of power would seemingly dictate that we do not control our lives - in other words, we accept/believe certain ideas simply because they are presented by people we are taught to revere and trust. This only gives those in power every opportunity to mold our values in accordance to theirs.

What little kid says “I hope to be an ego-driven executive when I grow up”? None that I’ve seen. The values, aspirations, and hopes of those kids were warped over the years by a conceptual world they were forced into accepting. We are those kids, and our parents before us. The sad part is that the trend only seems to be progressing…

[statiktech]

I guess this may also be applicable since I explain my theory on religion that affirms my posts above in regards to how/why a “religion” would manipulate the desires, and subsequent hopes, of its members (whom, I expect to any religion, would ideally be everyone in the world)…

I have a theory, quite open to discussion, and it’s very simple: Religion is a creation of man, by man, and for man (man = mankind), in which a moral standard is created and labeled the “way” or “law” as posited by the respective deity. A religious text, such as The Bible, is moral philosophy at its core, but the ideals are expressed in story form, involving characters that can be conceptualized, so as to provide continuity in the message, aid understanding by use of examples and application, and emphasize the existence of a deity. A convincing story, after all, is far more effective than a book that simply says “God exists, deal with it. Now do this stuff because he says so…”. The creation, use, and emphasis of the deity is a direct play on the inherent fear that exists in human beings when excessive power mixes with excessive mystery. In other words, a deity is needed in order to invoke the fear of consequences - consequences of not believing, not adhere to the respective moral philosophy, asking questions (aka “tempting God” as Christians so lovingly put it). The ultimate goal being the answer to humanities biggest mystery and fear: Death.

So, after centuries of this stuff moving around, changing hands, and undergoing various “modifications”, people begin to deviate from the moral philosophy (being that it is outdated and the “laws” that it posits are inconsistent with humanity). The result are these new sects of “believers” that focus more on the deity, or characters of the story, more than the moral philosophy - the real message - of the text. This is where the religious ‘extremists’ evolve from. Less focus on the moral, more on the idea of pleasing the deity - thus creating a new moral philosophy. This happens enough over a sizable span of time and we arrive in the current where people have faith without reason or doubt, people distinguish themselves separately from nature, and extremists are to the point of frequent suicides/murders, war, picketing the funerals of dead soldiers, open hate toward “alternate lifestyles”, etc. The point being this: Religion becomes dangerous once the deviation from the moral philosophy begins.

[Religious people] seem to be too busy using the concept of “God” to justify itself, of all things, to consider that [they] are being asked questions [they] can’t answer. I imagine the first inclination is to justify the fact that doubt will inevitably exist, rather than address it and answer the questions. If you can’t answer questions, or come to logical conclusions in your own mind, regarding your “beliefs” - why bother believing? For someone like that - who knows just enough to preach, but not near enough to explain - I might argue the answer to that question is fear.

In any case, I have noticed a trend in the “religious” masses - not particular to any one religion however - to affirm the existence and power of “God” via the persistence of the respective religion through its respective history (ex. "Why do you think the Bible has been around for so long? or why it’s the best selling book in the world?). The answer is simple to me - it’s not so much the persistence of the message since quite a bit of moral philosophy, especially in regards to religion, is very similar in its framework . Rather, it is the persistence of the followers that perpetuate the religion. A religion will only fade when the believers fade, so the religions that didn’t last are simply a result of a given cultures being exterminated or swallowed up by another (Mayans, Aztecs, Native Americans, etc.). This has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the message, or the existence of the characters within that religion’s story. Religion began, and exists today, for the same core reason: We need a reason to be happy with a life of torment as well as a reason to not fear, or dwell on, death. Now though, it is about people dominating other people.

[namelesss]

@statiktech

This only gives those in power every opportunity to mold our values in accordance to theirs.

Yet is this not what you attempt to do with the the ‘believers’?
Yes, at one point this touched on my topic.
I have to tell you that I can take your writing here, youPerspective, and fill in the blanks from the believerPerspective and have the whole thing remain equally ‘true’ and ‘real’.
What you were doing was/is relating reality as you perceive it, being a real and true feature of the complete Universe/Reality/existence. A ‘feature’, not the whole enchilada. A ‘goddist’ relating reality as they perceive it, is also a true and real feature of the complete universe.
Why would you have the goddists or the fundamentalists different? Would you really want to live in a Universe with all Perspectives matching you (impossible as all Perspectives are unique)? Wouldn’t that world be a bit… ‘cramped’?

“The complete universe is defined/described as the sum-total of all Conscious Perspectives!” - Book of Fudd

You, of course make sense (other than a few logical fallacies that could be cleaned up), in context, but so does everyone!

The sad part is that the trend only seems to be progressing…

Some of us teach our children how to employ critical thought and question/examine everything; all assumptions, all axioms, all appearances (and it’s all apprearance), their own thoughts, etc…
But that is, ultimately, non-different than the parent who teaches his children their Catechism and what to believe, how to see the context in which those beliefs are reality, etc…
It’s all real, it all exists, and the complete Universe would have to be different sans the Conscious Perspective of the tiniest dust mite! (think butterfly effect)

‘There is more in heaven and hell than fits in your philosophy, dear Horatio!’
Unimaginably more!

Thank you for your response, statiktech. That was what I was looking for, relevent Perspectives. I’d like to keep the discussion orbiting a bit closer to the OP, though.
Thanx

[matthatter]

Preface: my reply is meant to defend what I see as the common root (and resulting recommended “treatment”) of most major religions. I know what I say doesn’t apply to all (or even most) past and current manifestations of this…drive/longing/need for answers and guidance.

It is rare for a person to actually “transcend” (at even a basic level) the “curse” of “having eatin from the tree of the 'knowledge of good and evil”
(meaning:)
for one’s vision of the “outside” world/for one’s judgments of mental objects/for one’s very self/existence–which is the subjective experience at a given moment–to be dependent on/rooted in the idea that there is an absolute “good” and an absolute “evil”; the primary delusion/curse of Man is believing/thinking (as if) these words have a higher/ultimate/“God”- or “Nature”-ordained meaning (and existence) without a mind associating them to subjective forms.

So, while I do think that today most “religion(s)”
–meaning, how most people think of and use myths associated with a certain religion–
is not (productive, helpful) for the “good”
(which always comes down to one appreciating–or at least accepting/not cursing–the experience/the mind at that moment/the being of one’s “self” as it is, and only is, for that moment)
[b]of not only that person, but (likely) many others that person affects,
I think that (it is very unfortunate that)
–by associating/limiting (one’s view of) “religion”, “spirituality”, “myth” etc. (and all those myths, stories and lessons judged in light of those words) with the delusional, oftentimes unproductive and sometimes extremely dangerous beliefs (and the resulting actions) of certain individuals–
people fail to see the wisdom that they (at least some of them) have to offer. [b]

I’ll refer to content in your OP, as an example.

Perhaps a unifying thread that runs through all religions, is that they all propagate the ‘madness’ of hope!

We can equate (your use of) this “hope”" with (your idea of) “faith”, yes?

Though you may have certain specific instances of “hope” (madness)–many of which I’m sure I’d agree are of no good use–in mind, I want to explain the potential value (of realizing the inevitability of and, hopefully, the resulting creative and productive use of) “faith”. The “human” mind (“arising” as a result of–amongst other things–the “processes” of the Homo Sapien), since it
A) can imagine (reconstruct/reformulate) the past, and think about (the subjective experiences of) the future,
and
B) can think about and refer to (always subjectively experienced) objects and situations that are not locally/physically/“objectively” present by using symbols (words),
the human mind, in order to avoid “bad” subjective experiences, will seek/accept “good” things and avoid/denounce “bad” things.
The problem is, the human mind (or at least one with the slightest bit of intelligence) will understand that–no matter how hard it tries to seek (and be) “good”, and how careful it is to avoid (being) “bad”, it cannot take every possibility into account–things happen (subjective experiences one would prefer to not have) that one cannot control.

In order to overcome this ambiguity (resulting from one’s inability to fully understand the “causes” so one can totally predict the “effects”), one decides–when the resulting anxiety arises–that all it can do is “hope” (things will be okay).

This idea–though I prefer to speak of it as “faith”–is often misunderstood because, well, most people aren’t very intelligent.

(The healthy and productive understanding and use of) “faith” is not to ignore the holes in what one “hopes” is (and uses as) a (accurate and rational and–for the purpose of “good”–productive, predictable and reliable) interpretation of (the causes of) “the world”. A lot of (even–of those that associate themselves with a religion–most) people do use “faith” this way, but that doesn’t mean that “faith”, as a(n abstract) tool–that those many use for little more than a blanket that they can wave around as a flag–doesn’t actually have a good use. And this (actually useful) kind of faith–in order to sufficiently understand its purpose and successfully utilize it–does require a certain insight into (and reduced identification with/reduced urge to defend) the ego.

It’s not that the (illusion of the) ego is (in itself) absolutely “Bad”…it’s just a significant source of suffering when it is taken too seriously, as if it actually exists and–in order to avoid “Bad” experiences--one
(mind identifying itself according to “its” Homo Sapien, “its” name, the mind/observer/experiencer of past events)
suffers as it feverishly tries to assure itself that it, its(self), is not “bad”.

So I certainly do NOT think the experience(ing) of the ego, or the self
…of associating different experiences/minds–that share a unique intimacy of having access to “personal” memories, or different body’s–though more similar to each other than to any other body, and both “translators” that give “the” (“self’s”) mind a sense/“understanding” of the environment (existing outside the mind)…
ought to be denounced… after all, I’m not sure this can be avoided…
…Maybe, with certain environmental conditions and/or subtle changes in neurochemistry, “Homo Sapiens” (or a similar species with bodies resulting in symbolic-thinking minds) could–having structured their first language with different initial foundations/basic meanings/interpretations (IE different primary ways of making sense of and expressing forms)–end up having a complex, environmentally-adaptable language void of any notion of a “self” (that exists across space and time, separate and independent from (its contact with/experience of) different, changing environments…
.…(but) even if I am not absolutely sure (that it is indeed impossible), I think to make sense of the (as I see it) world and guide my actions according to this ideal
–which not only might be impossible, but is also at odds with the worldviews and ideals of most others, while not offering any reliable benefits to my mental health (possibly ensuring quite the opposite)–
would require the kind of “faith”, or “hope”, that gives the useful (and, unfortunately, little understood) tool a bad name.

Life can surely be a house of mirrors…

Exactly! (Though I am giving a meaning to these words that you did not intend).

The truly rational, skeptical thinker ends up realizing that the only meaning (of life) and purpose of (oneself in existence) is the meaning and purpose a mind gives to it. None of us ever see the external world exactly as it is–every object is a reflection of oneself (the habits of symbolic association/interpretation).

The human mind (for the most part) needs a “why” in order to confidently choose how to act (how to prepare for a “good” future).

There is no “scientific data”, or logical proof, that something happens FOR (the purpose of) some (future) absolute good (an active and conscious design/plan for the sake of some other abstract–not existing in that moment–ideal that exists, as “good”, beyond a human mind interpreting it as such).

There are, however, certain beliefs (that, for example, certain things/actions are “right” or “wrong”) that are so widely shared by people…
…due to
A) the Homo Sapien body almost always resulting in such an experience/judgment of specific things or actions
and/or
B) common (“key”) cultural foundations (I guess calling them “memes” will work for you) that may have been needed, or at least very useful, for the preservation of the group…
…that just about everyone considers them (absolute, inarguable) “facts”.

For example, the wrongness of rape.

Even if I think that rape isn’t absolutely wrong–that it is bad no matter what, beyond a human mind’s experiencing (either the act itself or the word) as “bad”–I still naturally feel and believe it is wrong, and I continue to hold this belief because I believe that
–for the sake of a society (and my comfortable integration with it) of people who, in order to live a more comfortable life, act according to a social contract to not knowingly “harm” (cause culturally-deemed “bad” experiences) to another–
thinking this way is “good” (for my mental health).

Basically, “faith” (as a useful tool) is the answer to the existential crisis.

“The Kingdom of God is in You” = The world that you see is your creation.

[namelesss]

@matthatter

Preface: my reply is meant to defend what I see as the common root (and resulting recommended “treatment”) of most major religions.

A) You have no need to ‘defend’ youPerspective. What you perceive is reality as is, moment a moment. Incomplete, but a real feature of the complete Universe/existence.
B) This is off topic. If you wish to offer and defend your notion of a common root in all religion, that would be on another thread, perhaps your’s. There are other commonalities of religions, like ‘belief’, the basic glue and common thread that is religion.

We can equate (your use of) this “hope”" with (your idea of) “faith”, yes?

No, we cannot.

Though you may have certain specific instances of “hope” (madness)–many of which I’m sure I’d agree are of no good use–in mind, I want to explain the potential value (of realizing the inevitability of and, hopefully, the resulting creative and productive use of) “faith”.

Unnecessary, i accept that there are other perspectives.
This topic is about exploring the perspective that I offered in my OP.

The problem is, the human mind (or at least one with the slightest bit of intelligence) will understand that…

I get so bored listening to the same old fallacies.
“Intelligent people drink Coke! You drink Coke, don’t you?” Please…

This idea–though I prefer to speak of it as “faith”–is often misunderstood because, well, most people aren’t very intelligent.

Uh oh, I ‘hope’ that I am not a swine before whom you cast your pearls.
I think that most people can give a reasonable definition of ‘faith’, despite your readily facile and egoic dismissal.
I am not discussing ‘faith’, though, I am discussing ‘hope’ in the OP context.

For example, the wrongness of rape.

I am not discussing the ‘sin’ of morality/pride other than in the context of the OP.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, unfortunately, it was predominately off-topic. I might have responded to much that you wrote as a different Perspective, but, again, not in this thread.
Thanks anyway.
peace

[matthatter]

unfortunately, it was predominately off-topic.

Well, I won’t go to the trouble of explaining how the post was not only on topic, but encompassing your topic, as it clarified a common (problematic) root to not only (negative manifestations of) religion, but human error in general.

I need to stick to a short reply in the future… to first check one’s likelihood of understanding his errors…before I spend so much time on a thoughtful, carefully constructed point.

Hopefully (what a madman I am…) someone else will get something out of it.

[namelesss]

@matthatter

unfortunately, it was predominately off-topic.

Well, I won’t go to the trouble of explaining how the post was not only on topic, but… blah, blah… in general.

(a legend in your own mind, huh…)
Yeah, whatever, you sure told me!
Obviously i am not intelligent enough to fully appreciate your misdirected rant.
I suggest you save your (ego) ‘pearls’ for those who are not swine (and the appropriate context).
If you think that the majority of your rant was on MY topic, it is you who are short of understanding.

bye bye

[anon]

The Place Beyond Fear and Hope

[namelesss]

@anon

The Place Beyond Fear and Hope

Interesting perspective. Makes sense to me; ‘hope’ = ego. Thank you.

[matthatter]

Obviously i am not intelligent enough to fully appreciate your misdirected rant.

Your OP was a rant–a (not at all unusual) over-generalization of religion (a popular scapegoat for those intelligent enough to see the lack of logic in others, but not intelligent enough to see the same “illness” in their myths). My reply was a carefully constructed response that obviously endangered your faith.

I suggest you save your (ego) ‘pearls’ for those who are not swine (and the appropriate context).

In the future I’ll be sure to verify the sincerity of one’s (quest for a rational) philosophy before devoting considerable time to pointing out one’s errors. Thanks.

[anon]

@namelesss

@anon

The Place Beyond Fear and Hope

Interesting perspective. Makes sense to me; ‘hope’ = ego. Thank you.

No problem.

[namelesss]

@matthatter

Your OP was a rant–

Whatever, welcome to my ‘ignore’ list.
Bye bye.

[Duality]

@namelesss

@anon

The Place Beyond Fear and Hope

Interesting perspective. Makes sense to me; ‘hope’ = ego. Thank you.

Lol what? So to you a human being must be like a piece of dead cardboard in order to not be egotistical? Isn’t doing anything considered ego as well? Shit, we’re all alive right now so guess that means we’re all egocentric.

[namelesss]

@Duality

@namelesss

Interesting perspective. Makes sense to me; ‘hope’ = ego. Thank you.

Lol what? So to you a human being must be like a piece of dead cardboard in order to not be egotistical?

Not at all! I don’t know what I could have said that you would infer as you have.
I certainly never said nor implied such a thing.
I could ask in return, ‘so to you a human being must be like a piece of dead cardboard in order to not be hopeful?’
Are you aware of your hopefulness every moment? If you perceive yourself without perceiving the feelings or thought of ‘hopefulness’, then you are not ‘hopeful’ in those moments. Are you then cardboard (other than in my comic-strip imagination)?

Isn’t doing anything considered ego as well?

Not in this experience. Non-egoic 'doing/being is Zen. The non-egoic moments are the ‘Zen’ moments.
‘Hope’ is a feature of egoPerspective. Ego is not synonymous with ‘hope’.

Shit, we’re all alive right now so guess that means we’re all egocentric.

Are you saying that we cannot live without egocentricism? If so, there is much evidence to the contrary.
And the focus here is on ‘hope’, specifically, not ego in general.

[Duality]

@namelesss

I could ask in return, ‘so to you a human being must be like a piece of dead cardboard in order to not be hopeful?’

In an analogous sense, yes. Hope is life as you defined it.

@namelesss

Are you aware of your hopefulness every moment? If you perceive yourself without perceiving the feelings or thought of ‘hopefulness’, then you are not ‘hopeful’ in those moments. Are you then cardboard (other than in my comic-strip imagination)?

But wouldn’t my perceiving myself be hope in itself? I would be hoping to not be hopeful. Without hope we would simply cease to exist

@namelesss

Not in this experience. Non-egoic 'doing/being is Zen. The non-egoic moments are the ‘Zen’ moments.
‘Hope’ is a feature of egoPerspective. Ego is not synonymous with ‘hope’.

You just said hope = ego…

@namelesss

Interesting perspective. Makes sense to me; ‘hope’ = ego. Thank you.

[omar]

@namelesss

Perhaps a unifying thread that runs through all religions, is that they all propagate the ‘madness’ of hope!
‘Hope’, something intimately egoPerspective. Which, oddly enough, most religions (at least outwardly) tend to denounce ego.
‘Ego’ seems no different than the ‘pride’ that most religions consider as (the only real) ‘sin’.
So, hmmmm, let me get this straight…, the ‘religious bodies’ are the typhoid Marys of the ‘sin’ that they claim is ‘evil’ and ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’… And it (‘hope’) spreads and seems to act like a virus. (Viral meme?)
Go to church (or temple or Mosque…), learn to ‘sin’…
Life can surely be a house of mirrors…
*__-

nameless, while this may make you feel calmer about religion, the fact is that your perspective is unusual because it is in error.

• They do all propagate the madness of hope, as you call it.
• Hope is something that makes no sense without an ego. But you are happy at this point and leave it at that. You do not seek to refine your understanding at all to reconcille the counter-intuitive conclusion.
• Having an ego is not a sin, not acting in a selfish way, such as when one is drawn to Jesus for the sake of his self-preservation. The sin of egoism is caused when you elevate your interests over the interests of another person, or seek your own gain to the detriment of the community.
• Pride is different from merely possessing an ego. A sense of self is ego. Pride is the ego’s forgetfullness of it’s own station. Pride is an action of the ego and not the ego itself. You can have an ego without pride but cannot have pride without an ego.
• Ego, or the sense of self, is stratified in different levels. A person’s sense of self is possible at a communal level as well as at the individual level. The hope of salvation, or the egoism of caring for your salvation is not a sin because it is not detrimental to others nor is it individual, because you pray for others, and your salvation does not preclude the salvation and desiring the salvation of all others that you love, which is egoism at a communal level, accepted and encouraged by all religions I know of.
  -The single greatest teaching in Christianity is sacrifice, the sacrifice of the individual self for the sake of the community, the group, your communal self. From the perspective of religion this is equated with “selflessness”.

I hope that helped you reconcilled religion with the ego.

[namelesss]

@Duality

@namelesss

I could ask in return, ‘so to you a human being must be like a piece of dead cardboard in order to not be hopeful?’

In an analogous sense, yes. Hope is life as you defined it.

I never defined ‘life’ as ‘hope’.
It is a feature of the lives of some.

@namelesss

Are you aware of your hopefulness every moment? If you perceive yourself without perceiving the feelings or thought of ‘hopefulness’, then you are not ‘hopeful’ in those moments. Are you then cardboard (other than in my comic-strip imagination)?

But wouldn’t my perceiving myself be hope in itself?

No. Perception is perception. Perceiving yourself feeling hopeful is still perception.

I would be hoping to not be hopeful.

Sounds a bit silly, but, yes, you could perceive yourself hoping for whatever. The content of that ‘hope’ is not the issue, it is the ‘hope’ itself.
One of the greatest (feelings of) freedom that I have ever experienced was when i no longer felt hopeful.
The single greatest freedom is relinquishing the egoic notion of ‘free-will/choice’.

Without hope we would simply cease to exist

Nonsense. I don’t think that you could find any dictionary to agree. You have the option, of course, to write your own. Until then, you have not demonstrated any reason for my acceptance of your definition. ‘Hope’ is just ‘one’ feature of existence, thats all.

@namelesss

Not in this experience. Non-egoic 'doing/being is Zen. The non-egoic moments are the ‘Zen’ moments.
‘Hope’ is a feature of egoPerspective. Ego is not synonymous with ‘hope’.

You just said hope = ego… Interesting perspective. Makes sense to me; ‘hope’ = ego. Thank you

Depends how you look at it. Hope is all egoic, and in that sense, it is equal. The entirety of hope is ego. I guess that I could have phrased it more clearly. Philosophy is a process indeed.
Perhaps by my elucidation, you now better understand what I mean.
‘Hope’ is a feature of ego, thats all.
Capisce’?

[namelesss]

@omar

nameless, while this may make you feel calmer about religion, the fact is that your perspective is unusual because it is in error.

The error, here, is in your perception that I have a problem with religion. I do not. I am making observations.
If there is error in my perceptions, it exists in your mind.
There is no erroneous Perspective. Not even yours.
(We are getting off on a bad foot. Lets see where this goes.)

• They do all propagate the madness of hope, as you call it.

Well, now that you have tasted my hyperbole, we can just call it ‘hope’. It is ‘hope’ as anyone calls it.

• Hope is something that makes no sense without an ego.

Because hope IS ego.
An (hydrospheric) ocean makes no sense without water…
No atmosphere without atmos.

But you are happy at this point and leave it at that.

I don’t know what my happiness has to do with anything.
Why not simply comment on the OP without gelling all up close and personal. Can you not simply deal with the concepts?

You do not seek to refine your understanding at all to reconcille the counter-intuitive conclusion.

I had no conclusion in the first place. I offered a Perspective, a valid Perspective for examination. I have no idea to what you refer by a “counter-intuitive conclusion”.
I well understand The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
“For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!” - [b]Book of Fudd /b
If thats what you’re talking about.

• Having an ego is not a sin,

Depends on Perspective. Believing in the presentations of the ego is ‘pride’. How many religions consider ‘pride’ a ‘sin’?

not acting in a selfish way, such as when one is drawn to Jesus for the sake of his self-preservation.

Noooooo!!
This is not about Jesus. The particular content of your ‘hope’ is not relevent, it is the nature of ‘hope’ itself that I am examining.

The sin of egoism is caused when you elevate your interests over the interests of another person, or seek your own gain to the detriment of the community.

That is what ego is.

• Pride is different from merely possessing an ego.

I’m not interested in attempts at justification. I am not attacking egoism or pride od hope. I am critically examining. I understand how this can ‘threaten’ beliefs, but if one feels that he must defend due to beliefs, I respectfully request you go read another thread. There need be no attack or defence here. These be philosophical (critical thought) grounds here.

Pride is an action of the ego and not the ego itself.

‘Pride’ is all ego. Rather, it is ‘belief’ in what the ego offers.

You can have an ego without pride but cannot have pride without an ego.

Ok.

The hope of salvation, or the egoism of caring for your salvation is not a sin because it is not detrimental to others

Sorry, your self-justification aside, your hope for salvation, is detrimental to you. You judge ‘creation’ at the moment as ‘insufficient’, as ‘incomplete’, as ‘imperfect’. You want something better; sufficient, complete, perfect… better. You did not create existence, yet, godlike, you judge it and find it wanting. Sounds like pride to me. You ‘hope’ for something ‘better’.
You mentioned stratification, that is not how I see existence, but;
First, there is an innocent at oneness with the universe, all is one and one blissfully observes the wonder of ‘creation’. No judgements, no thoughts, no ego, just direct perception of existence.
Somewhere far below such an enlightened, blissful, awesome state is that of ego and beliefs and thoughts about what one might occassionally have directly perceived.
Then, believing in ‘free-will/choice’ one believes oneself right into creatorhood in judging from a supposed autonomous position. Jump up and down a few times, spin to the right, spin to the left, wave your arms and pray, cuss, incant, implore, command, whatever… and ‘hope’ for results more in accord with YOUR will.

nor is it individual, because you pray for others, and your salvation does not preclude the salvation and desiring the salvation of all others that you love, which is egoism at a communal level, accepted and encouraged by all religions I know of.

Exactly! That is why i mentioned the irony of religion pushing (the ‘sin’ of) pride in ‘hope’. Like a toxin filled doughnut. Ironic, but not when viewed in a ‘viral’ context, or perhaps, memetically.
What better way for a virus to spread than at an anti-virus rally!

-The single greatest teaching in Christianity is sacrifice, the sacrifice of the individual self for the sake of the community, the group, your communal self. From the perspective of religion this is equated with “selflessness”.

I’m not talking about ‘sacrifice’, the topic-du-jour is ‘hope’.
You needn’t defend religion. I’m not attacking it, just examining it’s propagation of ‘hope’.

I hope that helped you reconcilled religion with the ego.

Reconcile? I don’t know what you mean by reconcile, here.
‘Hope’ is a major feature of religion. It appears that one innate feature/‘reason d’etre’ of religion is is to maintain and spread this ‘hope’. A ‘sin’. Seems rather viral in behavior.
Peace

[Duality]

@namelesss

I never defined ‘life’ as ‘hope’.

If hope = ego, life = hope.

@namelesss

No. Perception is perception. Perceiving yourself feeling hopeful is still perception.

Yea, but that perception is still a product of hope

@namelesss

I would be hoping to not be hopeful.

Sounds a bit silly, but, yes, you could perceive yourself hoping for whatever. The content of that ‘hope’ is not the issue, it is the ‘hope’ itself.

The contents of perception are hope, so that won’t work either

@namelesss

Without hope we would simply cease to exist

Nonsense. I don’t think that you could find any dictionary to agree. You have the option, of course, to write your own. Until then, you have not demonstrated any reason for my acceptance of your definition. ‘Hope’ is just ‘one’ feature of existence, thats all.

Don’t need a dictionary, it’s common sense. If you had no hope of doing anything, you would simply die right now.