Apocalypse or just a bad conscience?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I have a feeling that the various scenarios which are being exploited by Hollywood are playing up to the bad conscience that we in the west have. Since we have started noticing that our shirts are cheap, for example, because somebody makes them for a 1% of the price in underdeveloped countries and we have been getting reports on how countries are exploited to the utmost in order to guarantee our life style, our conscience has started to itch. Then there is the technology which requires more and more energy and the fact that we are using up the resources at such a rate, that our grandchildren – if not our children – will feel the pinch in their lifetime.

I had a such bad conscience when I was in the far east and clearly overweight that I came back and dropped 28 pounds, so you might say that this applies to me but not necessarily to other people in the west. But I believe that with most people who are awake to what is going on in the world it is just repressed and raises its head in a different way elsewhere. We know deep down that things can’t go on the way they have in at least the last 60 years, let alone since the colonial times.

Some Christians I have met actually welcome the apocalypse, presuming that only the others will have to go through it, who haven’t “accepted Christ as their personal saviour”. Well, that seems to me reason enough not to, and instead show some solidarity with those “lost souls” or the “least of my brothers” as Jesus apparently called them. But where to begin? It seems to me that this question has held us back up until now, but in reality Christians are called to spontaneity (see another thread) as a quick reply to such procrastinations.

Recently I have read a book in German called, “Disease as a Path” (Krankheit als Weg). The thesis is that disease – even terminal disease – can be a strategy of our soul or psyche to cope with situations we are trying to repress, which comes out in the title of the second book, “disease as the language of the soul” (Krankheit als Sprache der Seele). It points obviously to psychosomatic disorders, but it also locates them in places we wouldn’t normally want to acknowledge them, like in accidents or even cancer. As the arguments were convincing, I started thinking about whether a similar behaviour is taking place in politics and technology, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of suicidal proportions, which is being prepared by Hollywood to a certain degree. It isn’t rational, but it sounds somehow human.

If this is so, then it is time to look at ways to heal such aspirations and come to our senses. Isn’t there something inherently religious about that kind of ambition?

What do you think?

2

I do not know, i’m just afraid to fail. I prefer to make me fail and will it than to try and fail and not to want it.

3

So you would prefer to fulfill a wish or an intention to fail rather than just to fail, although it hasn’t avoided your fear of failure?

That isn’t rational either, but it is very human, but would the attempt to change that be psychotherapy or, when addressing numerous people with the same fear, religion?

Take Care

4

That’s an awesome thesis! I never thought of that.

It reminds me of theories about how depression serves a purpose. Counter-intuitive theories are the best: “how could that which feels so bad for us be good for us”? I can apply it to people I’ve seen and people I’ve known too. And it somehow seems very plausible that politics, technology and religion actually sublimate some unconscious desire to mess things up out of bad conscience.

I wonder if the same theory applies to philosophy - particularly in my taking pleasure in this theory about disease and self-destruction. I don’t regard myself as self-destructive, having a bad conscience, nor do ever seem to get ill - but whether this is denial or not, it raises the question about how the good conscience can also surface in places we wouldn’t normal acknowledge it. Someone who never gets ill wanting ill people to be confronted with bad conscience would encourage them to examine themselves and heal themselves in other ways - so this is good will. Likewise, wanting politics and technology to be taken a look at suggests a will toward more people re-evaluating themselves… though this could be construed as envy with the hope that those with power over me would have to capitulate, or at least step back a little.

It does seem rather unChristian to accept that only they go to heaven to let the rest of us suffer! This does suggest an ill will to those who do not respect you and your choices - those who are not part of your group. Personally, I would be pleased if they all went to heaven and left the rest of us alone and away from their nonsense. They are another group who I feel relatively powerless to sort out - which I’d prefer to do for my own benefit, but can’t do. So the bad conscience here is reciprocal.

5

There may be some puzzle here as to how Jesus, who claimed to have come to save the lost, can also claim to be brother with the lost. But the reference to “my brothers” is in respect of his own disciples, not to others.

6

This isn’t as new as we think, the author Rüdiger Dahlke (who wrote the first book with Thorwald Dethlefsen) calls on expressions and proverbs to show that much of this is collective knowledge which is still part of our language to some degree. German is very graphic in associating symptoms of diseases with behaviour habits and indeed certain organs, much like Ayurveda and TCM do. Going through a large list of sicknesses, he draws our attention to areas of our lives where we might find we need to tidy up or fix some things in order to have success in healing, or points to a behaviour pattern which takes on pathological traits in certain diseases, but can be seen as a continuation of that behaviour. He also shows that the word disease is essentially two words: dis-ease, which describes the loss of ease. We need to review how we look at dis-ease.

When we refer to disease or illness, we are referring to a lack of harmony or balance which the body tries to put back into harmony or balance, producing the visible or not so visible symptoms. The symptoms point to the problem, which initially isn’t systemic, but a localised imbalance, which can become systemic if it is not attended to. A requirement for a healthy body is therefore a mindful attitude and an alert spirit. When we use this as an analogy for society, we need an alert government and a mindful population with which we could react whenever dis-ease spreads. It seems needless to say that this doesn’t seem to be how it is - perhaps because we are preoccupied with other (less important?) things. We seem only satisfied when our body does what we want and requires little in return. Men are notorious for neglect of their skin, which is often dry and badly circulated. Patriarchal Societies chronically neglect communication, which is the associated attribute for that organ, and lack the finely tuned abilities of women, who generally care for their skin. This is a small example of how this thesis can be understood, progressing from organ to organ, from disease to disease.

Take care

7

Hi, Bob,
Good thread, sir!
Our bodies strive for homeostasis, for balance. Our minds often thwart the process. But–I agree that, just as pain in the body is a sign of disorder, pain in “mind” is a sign of exposure to disorder. There are those whose consciences work, and apparently those whose doesn’t. Christian ideas about helping those who are less fortunate than we might be suffer from beliefs such as that exploitation for profit is amoral and that individual egos need constant reinforcement by accumulating wealth and power.
In the instance of Simone Weil, a beautiful soul died from empathy when she could have lived to further Christian charity.

8

Hi Ierrellus,

I get the feeling that homeostasis is the last thing that certain people at the top want, rather they get a thrill out of imbalance – especially of others, and use it to their own advantage. People at the bottom seem to be too preoccupied to gain a basic idea of what homeostasis could mean for them, if they would use such a term to begin with. I actually was speaking with someone who spoke to me about being fit and attractive, having the self-assured gait of an athlete but weighing in at 120 kg. This person smoked so much he already had nicotine stains on his fingers, repeatedly went on alcoholic binges and rejected any kind of fruit or vegetable on his diet. He is 35, but I’m not sure whether he’ll make 53.

The same kind of numbness is sometimes experienced on holiday in under-developed countries. I actually heard someone on the Nile complain about the Egyptians allowing the poor to beg the tourists. I asked whether we should try to help the beggar become independent of baksheesh and was told that beggars are a natural consequence of their lifestyle. If they would go out and work, the situation would be different, “but”, she said to me, “they’re just too lazy!” I said, “I suppose they could always sweep up the desert – its been in an awful state for so long now!” and she stood up and walked away. Later we met her on a felucca wearing hotpants which left nothing unseen although we had been asked to respect the Islamic prudity and the poor boy sailing the boat nearly fell overboard when his gaze set on this woman sitting wide-legged opposite him. That isn’t lack of empathy, it is numbness.

Yes, a broken heart that put herself in more situations of solidarity than were good for her.

Take Care

9

It isn’t “homeostasis” that is sought by the body, but harmony.

Harmony involves motion and a degree of acceptable change, growth and momentum, music and dance. Homeostasis implies mere peace and stagnation. “Those on the top” gain by their own perception of progress that most often comes by the futile struggle of others beneath them, paying for their growing wealth.

Real Christianity proposes that those who have won the game, give back into the game so as to maintain the music and dance rather than burn as fuel those beneath them so as to create a living hell to warm the stagnate feet and delight the perverse greed of the ultra wealthy.

Psychosomatic disorders are the same thing that are merely confined to the congregation that is the body and mind. The mind struggles against itself so as to increase the gain of the few within who are running the show. Part of the body or will is sacrificed into blind self-defeat so that a portion can gain what it perversely perceives as its own hope for more power. In the confusion, the body suffers from bad management.

In older days, that greedy portion of effort within was called a “de-mon”, dividing the one, the “mon”, the harmony and was the cause of weakness to disease. The body when in harmony is a tough assembly to destroy. But in disharmony through divided effort and priority, becomes easily invaded and persuaded against its own health.

10

Although I originally didn’t use the word homeostasis myself, I find it fitting and nothing implying stagnation in its definition – more of a quiet balance regained after some kind of stress:

ho·me·o·sta·sis
–noun
the tendency of a system, especially the physiological system of higher animals, to maintain internal stability, owing to the coordinated response of its parts to any situation or stimulus tending to disturb its normal condition or function.
Psychology. A state of psychological equilibrium obtained when tension or a drive has been reduced or eliminated.

I sometimes ask myself where these ideas come from, since you never give your sources, your thoughts are unconventional, and your sentences have many twists in them. This leaves me asking whether I really have understood the sentence.

You interweave between metaphors and analogies or illustrations, leaving the kind of confusion you are speaking about above.

Here is another issue of etymology similar to one we have had in another thread.

demon
late 14c., from L. dæmon “spirit,” from Gk. Daimon (gen.daimonos ) “lesser god, guiding spirit, tutelary deity,” (sometimes including souls of the dead), used (with daimonion ) in Christian Gk. Translations and Vulgate for “god of the heathen” and “uncleanspirit.” Jewish authors earlier had employed the Gk. Word in this sense, using it to render shedim “lords, idols” in the Septuagint, and Matt. Viii.31 has daimones, translated as deofol in O.E., feend or deuil in M.E. The original mythological sense is sometimes written dæmon for purposes of distinction. The Demon of Socrates (late 14c.) was a daimonion, a “divine principle or inward oracle.” His accusers, and later the Church Fathers, however, represented this otherwise. Fem. Form demoness first attested 1630s. The Demon Star (1895) is Algol.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

Take Care

11

Bob, :slight_smile:

I have trouble seeing what you are getting at with your posts, as from your responses, I can see that you have trouble with mine. We each confuse the other because we are thinking so differently. Yet I get the impression that we are actually on the same general side, merely using words differently with a few minor differences concerning some principles.

Activity and most usually distractive activity (entertainment) are a part of the body’s need. Without activity, the harmony of the body cannot be maintained. “Idle hands are the Devil’s tools”. It is the momentum of the activity that prevents subtle invasion. When a body is at rest for too long, many forms of corruption easily take over. The body dies.

But otherwise useless activity disinspires the “soul”/“heart”/incentive. The need of the heart and mind is to perceive progress even if in error. That is what makes entertainment, games, and fantasies. They are sought because the mind cannot function in rigid stagnation of having no goals to achieve due to the ever increasing anxiety/bordom that grows by consequence of too little momentum in effort, too little incentive to strive, passion. Eve was created because Ahdam was too rigidly dry, logical, and lifeless, without passion to accomplish. Eve is what gave the passion in life to the scene.

I am a conceptualist, a Hebrew. You are not. I think in terms of the concepts involved, rather than their superficial, temporal physicality. I think in terms of what was once called “spiritualism”, the principles involved, not merely the material appearances and objects. You are somewhat of a materialist to me although probably not a materialist in the typical philosophical sense.

Anything said by anyone will give confusion to someone, especially when they presume to use the same words while allows definition to “evolve” (corrupt). Note that the Bible didn’t include a dictionary. Every generation had to guess as to what was really meant by what was said. And over thousands of years and extreme changes in culture and incentives, what was said can gain an entirely different apparent meaning. Etymologists are merely apes trying to figure out what Human’s probably meant long ago (with a lot of socialistic corruption in the mix). They generally only infer a relationship with an older similar language, often actually unrelated to the actual intent and origin. It takes a Hebrew mind to understand the Hebrew intent.

Example; Ahdam, The Making of Man

Of course to you, that will be merely a theory. My point is for you to look at the constructs involved, not merely what someone guessed or promoted that someone long ago in a different culture really meant. The construct of the concepts is what makes the “spell”, the “casting” of meaning in a mind, a “word” and a final “sentence”.

Without the intended concepts, every language becomes a set of irrational lies. And thus you have a horde of atheists claiming the irrationality of the Bible. The typical Christian can’t really argue because he never learned their true concepts and meanings.

And atheist can easily argue with a Christian, but has a hell of a time with me. But unfortunately, the Christian can’t figure out what I am saying in his defense and is likely to disagree. The sheep don’t understand the dog. The sheep bite the sheepdog who is fending off the wolf.

Take Care 2

12

I wouldn’t worry too much, Bob. Everybody’s in the same boat with regard to this guy. He puts it down to being beyond our level…

I agree with this.

Homeostasis is no more important to the human body than hetereoflux (lol) or whatever the opposite is. And likewise harmony is no more important than disharmony. It is disharmony that makes one stronger (such as damaging muscles through limited overexertion such that they grow back in larger quantity/quality), but one cannot benefit from disharmony without recuperation through harmony. One lives life more fully when challenging their body - which is preferable to many, far more than trying to prolong life for the longest period possible.

And either way, it is not “the body” that seeks either of these things - the body is made up of cells with their own agenda, or fixed mechanical patterns. The central nervous system and limbic system control physical and emotional behaviour, but they too are made up of cells with their own agenda - subject to their environment within and without the body.
In this sense it is not exactly the cells by themselves who indirectly run the body, but a macro-system of genetic-environmental interplay.
This process may resolve itself to some extent with regard to the individual - consistently enough to resemble a specific personality (subject to change) though it is understood through science that it is not “the body”, “the cells” or “the environment” etc. that makes decisions but the whole system - as a whole. And it is the body that acts before the “mind” has had a chance to understand what it feels and attribute its agency to the action that preceded its consciousness of the action.

So all in all, with everything so interconnected and interdependent like this, “bad conscience” intervening in and permeating all decisions becomes a more and more believable thesis.

13

Where is the puzzle there? Doesn 't it make sense that it is far easier to save someone when that someone knows that you are in solidarity with them, that you are capable of relating to them, not just on their level, but that you are in empathy with them - in other words “That Man is You”.

Do I myself have to feel ‘lost’ in order to be ‘one’ with those who are lost? But it may help to have been lost at one point.
We are made ‘one’ by reason of our humanity - brothers and sisters through our humanity; that is, if we are aware of it and even if we are not.

Christ had a human side.

14

Bob,
I think your descriptions of homeostasis are correct. It is not some stopping point in processes of physical/mental development. It is a body’s and mind’s attempt to provide the sense of well-being necessary for any other endeavors. I apologize if this word has caused contention.
Why do folks who call themselves religious not practice what is preached? You’re getting into the depth of the matter with your examples. Those who cannot love themselves cannot love anybody else. So the substitutes for love become drugs. One cannot judge another without first judging oneself. So the substitutes become revenge. Much of the inability to start from square one, the self, owes to social mileus that compel folks to look anywhere other than themselves for answers to questions about why a self cannot interact with what is “other” in an empathetic or compassionate way.

15

OK, I can work with that. My original intention was to ask whether treating apocalyptic scenarios as entertainment was in fact a repressed awareness that we, as a species, can’t go on the way we have been doing. I added the thesis from the book I read, that it seems that human-beings even go so far as to choose disease and suffering as a way to cope with tough situations and I then asked what that could mean on a global scale.

Further, I asked whether treating the psychosomatic disease as the medical solution in single cases could be complemented by a religion/ religions able to heal as a collective solution? I read that this complementary relationship is still found with shamans and medicine men, and is also rooted in world religions, albeit lost to our sight in a practical sense except as stories or events of dramatic miracle-healing supposedly demonstrating spiritual enlightenment and spiritual gifts. However, I also find that healing and spirituality go hand in hand in traditions all across the world over thousands of years, but with a clear call to humility and not to put these things on show in that manner.

I feel that our “modern” society tend to put all of the hope available here aside in a irrational disbelief in the ability of the body to heal itself, unable to attend to itself with meditation or contemplation, and unable to free itself from the craving which sits at the root of our society. Rather we would “escape” out of the back door, hoping for a fast delivery or redemption from our suffering. This seems to colour much of what is referred to as Christianity in the west, which in my eyes extends the problems rather than solve them.

I’ll overlook the comments on one-sidedness, which seems to be obvious (since rest is all the better for action and action all the better for rest) and look at this statement. Now knowing where you are coming from, I still would ask where the idea of dry, logical and lifeless without passion come from? Up to a degree, we can say that the duality of the knowledge of good and evil provides two interdependent sides, which are good for a holistic view – some say three would be better. But I don’t see this idea at the outcome. Perhaps you can explain that for me.

I don’t think that you can make it that easy. I am somewhat pragmatic because professionally I have practical problems to solve, but that isn’t my nature, rather I tend to see things in the global perspective. Also, I have been said to frustrate my peers by maintaining that we are not a merely passive recipients of experience but always see things within certain frames of mind, and therefore we need to agree on concepts in order that we can communicate experience a little easier.

With regard to Christians, I have for some time both baffled and annoyed Christians with my views, which have been based on the little knowledge I have attained about the structure of Hebrew, Aramaic and related languages. In fact, a long time ago I was arguing the point here that the switch between the Hebrew/Aramaic and the Greek language and culture meant that a great deal in Christianity lost its roots and became redefined – very often expressing derogation for the original thought, which didn’t fit in with the worldview of the Greeks. So I don’t think that we are so far apart after all.

Take Care

16

Thanks, I think we have to look at the problems that “religious” people have with themselves, since they don’t seem to want to. I think you are right about substitutes being addictive, and they seem to arise out of neglect and denial. Peer pressure has a lot to do with why people are too anxious to look over the fence, and the insecurity which is preached to keep up that anxiety. It is a power game which is contra-productive, but it is also the opposite to what scriptures tell us.

Take Care

17

Well, according to one minister who is getting much press coverage, the world as we know it is supposed to end today about dinner time. I don’t expect that to happen; but I see in that sort of proclamation the same sort of indoctrination by anxiety you describe. And I do agree that many folks will accept immediate, familiar suffering over any distant promises of well-being.
IMHO, if Jesus appeared on our sullied streets today and preached his Sermon on the Mount, he would either be ridiculed or assassinated. It doesn’t wash here! Peer pressure, as you noted, and looking away from the horrors of dehuminization continue to support the status quo.

18

I think we have to look around to see who’s gone and, most important - who hasn’t gone! I was watching that Preacher Camping and wondering how he can smile when talking about the end of the world and the destruction of millions of lives … By the way, we have a second chance to be destroyed next year too!

For me this is typical of what I have been talking about on this thread.

Take Care

19

I have been too busy lately to respond to this, but I’ve wanted to.
I still don’t have much time but a few brief moments, yet I still want to throw this in.

Essentially, conscience has a roll, yes, but it’s more of a conscience that is tied to sociological environment change.
Religion as a whole is in flux right now and as happens every time in record when that occurs, predictions of the end begin to fly around.
The other thing that commonly comes from such fluxes are radical shifts that introduce a new religious adherence standard or understanding of engaging religion that wasn’t held before.

Think of something simple and directly in front of everyone in the west at any random hotel, nearest church, or perhaps your own nightstand; Christianity’s genesis is itself a religious revolution that brought forward a radically new format of interacting with religion and came along with several claims to the end of times being immediately near.

And yet another simple example was the radical shift to protestantism, which brought about equal parts of new interaction and predictions of the end yet again.
Same with the advent of revivalism in the pioneering America of the United States, same with several religions before Christianity came about.

For those that are of the traditional, the end appears to be at hand.
For those that see plague in the tradition and wish to radically “correct” it’s errors theologically, the end is at hand and motive to change.
For those that are enthusiests of change in affirmation, the end is not at hand, but birth.
For those that are critics of any of the above, the end should be hand for all of the above; anti-theism/religion is absolutely not a new concept by any measure.

So there’s my brief summary, of which I could elaborate (and do in my own personal writings) on in length.
In very short form, it’s a sign of a major tidal change in sociological structure.
Chiefly, our provocation for this one is globalization.

20

Hi Stumps,

OK, I think this and your examples are true to what we are observing, but I also see a tendency to accept the malevolent as an escape route, not only in private affairs but even on a global level, whether religious on non-religious. There have been lots of people who fatalistically foresee a world-war or a major cataclysm as the only way to “sort things out”, however they think that sorting should take place. Acceptance of the malevolent in one generation often scares younger generations into restricting the amount of children born and as an alternative pouring themselves into consumerism.

Globalization is probably inevitable, but it is being run by unscrupulous people who search for places and people to exploit until the exploited start getting educated and standing up for themselves. As long as this goes on, a continual weakening of cultural and religious fibre is followed by financial weakening. This process spans generations and leaves later generations with nothing with which they can heal the situation they have found themselves in. Anarchy is then a real threat. Is that a proper heritage to be left behind when we go?

Is there not something we need to do now?

Take Care