Innocence and the contemporary hierophant

Innocence and the contemporary hierophant

Basic meaning; ‘I am not the creator of myself nor the world’ and am not to blame for them. When we do something ‘wrong’ the issue is concerned with the specifics of the case and does not denote who we are. A small but critical difference, that no one is to blame for life! …and that if for example someone commits murder, usually they consider themselves to be ‘a murderer’ rather than understanding that, after the deed is done they are innocent again. This doesn’t mean people should not be punished for their actions, it just means that they are not defined by them, the chain of causality is simply continued by both parties if we don’t find a way to break it in both the mind of the accused and accuser.

I suppose this is kind of opposite to the notion of ‘original sin‘.

The ‘spiritual’ side of the equation

If we consider that awareness is universal, and that we are but transient expressions of that in the form of consciousness, then the hierophant delivers the release from our karmic bonds, that the essential being remains innocent. If we don’t do that it is like we dirty the eternal pool, nature does a similar thing, a beast does its necessary deeds and is immediately absolved and the line of innocence is continued.
We may look at nature and indeed human society as in places seemingly ‘evil’, because we see it all from an individualistic perspective, but from the universal perspective it is apparent that fundamental natures like awareness would remain pure - so to say I.e. of themselves. Expressions of universals are transient as are their exponents in given act, this makes it finite and of the moment, it does not make a moment eternally shameful and blame perpetual.

Our bodies are the vehicles of such expressions, we are the driver and yet so to does the vehicle drive itself, so at times it is as though [or actually so] we are but a passenger watching as events unfold around us. In terms of averages I suppose we could say that we are only ever partially responsible for events as there are always other parties involved.

For the believers in god; lets imagine that god isn’t separated from reality, that would mean we are all literally sons and daughters of god, and that god would need to have a way to absolve himself and his sons from all ills.

In short, deal with the issue and not the person, a criminal is you put into a different set of circumstances, and if there is a need to blame, blame also the moment and the issue therein.

it all seams quite obvious and yet some things canot be written. :slight_smile:

Bloody hell he says the same ethic, :astonished: :slight_smile: albeit from a different perspective and not including the universal ‘spiritual’ aspect, to which I say; one must have a basis that grounds an ethic in purpose, or it seams futile and pointless. mostly I agree with what I read from Nietzsche but like most atheistic readings it seams to lack dimension and basis or a point in anything other than its own self worth ~ which most here will probably think is a good thing. :slight_smile:

Oh, that was by no means a criticism or comparison, I still found your OP insightful and definitely well thought; the snippet I posted was more or less for the purpose of affirming your stance on how we judge and why it has come to be such.

I also agree that ethics/morality must need grounding, but why must it necessarily be spiritual? I feel like the grounding for a non-spiritual stance in morality must exist in order for a spiritual affirmation of that ethic to take place. The conscience seems to speak to us whether we are acting upon fictitious standards or not. The conscience seems inherent in any remotely analytical mind; some form or fashion of it at least.

My question is why can the conscience, and subsequently our true motives, not be grounded and judged on a utilitarian, or even humanitarian basis? Is preserving and improving human life not reason enough to act morally?

The dimension that Nietzsche seems to ‘lack’ is one of imaginative idealism – he is certainly an idealist in many ways, but his grounding in reality (demonstrated through his passions for psychology, philology, natural sciences, etc.) is all too apparent in his sarcasm and his elitist view of society. The basis or point, to me, is not self-glorification by any means, but rather that we need not deceive ourselves and our children for the sake of a greater good. ‘Spirituality’ often seems to conveniently coincide with the inexplicable, or ultimately subjective, as if to say “OK, I guess everyone in the world can’t agree on this issue, so let’s see the reaction when accountability is given to a mysterious, ever-present, all-knowing force”. The result is just fear, and the focus becomes what one supposes is ‘beyond’ life (and death).

I think above all, philosophers like Nietzsche were proponents of life and experience – why hinder the journey of another individual, who is experiencing the same struggles as you, for no good reason? In that capacity, could the grounding, or purpose, of a moral standard (or code of “ethics”) not simply be respect for life, nature, and movement?

‘Spirituality’ and religion, in my opinion, have little place in morality as they take a very real, and very necessary, concept and base it on consequence or outcome (obviously one that is believed to be very positive in nature). Why should we not base that concept on the actors involved, the circumstances, variables, deviations, and motives? All seem to be very human parts of the conscience – the point is that our ‘conscience’ does not necessarily have to be determined by beliefs, or morally ambiguous laws that stem from beliefs.

Why not act morally without regard to death, or what is believed to ‘transcend’ observable reality? Morality, as it pertains to a subject, only matters in our observable reality, and only affects actors in said reality (…that we ‘know’ of). What is the need for ethics in a spiritual or religious context? A means to an end; no?

Thank you, I hope I added a millimetre to the mile Nietzsche gave us. :slight_smile:

My posts tend to connect to one another and recently I have been discussing reality as layered, with awareness as one such layer. The use of the term ‘spiritual’ was for want of a better overall term, to describe a very vague clumping together of all things aside from the material.

I see your point and its quite right in its context, however sometimes considering the whole gives us the greater depth I am after. When we deal with the specific thing as philosophers so often do, then sure we can make a more distinctive example, yet we lack as science does, an overall piecing together of all those parts to form an image. That image may indeed not be visible until we do ~ kinda like the picture on a jigsaw. Thus I feel it is valid to take both approaches, I mean why not?

Indeed, like our vision it relies of the sanctity of the given facts, yet can be easily deceived. To it, it doesn’t matter if we are acting or not for example, we have to keep reaffirming to its process that we are in fact acting. Perhaps conscience is part of the image on the jigsaw? …a part that communicates with the pieces but either party doesn’t know one another in certain terms.

For a reasonable and sane person yes. In fact we don’t even need reasons to preserve life as that is something of a given, we need reasons not to perhaps. If we can give more meat to the argument then we may be able to bridge the gap between those who think human life has worth and those who don’t [or at least act like so]. For me the most important person to convince are those who perpetrate the negative acts, a good starting point is to not make their ‘evils’ into a way of life or a trade - so to say.

…unless there is such a thing! It doesn’t have to be god or that we literally have a soul, but that we even exist is to me somewhat fundamental. Our children may not grow up to think humans have any worth, if they think we are nothing more than organic robots, for me this makes the quest imperative. …and they would be right?_!

So that description of spirituality is incorrect, this happens when you just use an arbitrary term, however if you then go on to say what you mean by it then the notion may not be partitioned out. So in short whenever someone mentions ‘god’ or the absolute, soul etc, we must then question exactly what they mean by that term [as you have done here].

For sure, now tell me what life is. If we tell people they don’t exist and there is no reason for anything then is that not hampering them. In the atheist materialist view, we self animate, or ‘it’ self animates ~ where there is no ‘you’ doing the self animating, thus we are not even actors nor passengers, what life and experience do we then have? [esp when there is no experiencer]

Absolutely, but the term belief covers a lot of ground, we could say we only have the belief that our knowledge and thus our thoughts are correct. We believe that we exist, that there is an awareness there, this is fundamental to us yet cannot be proved, we can only presume its reality due to its everpresence. We have then, false beliefs that are unsubstantiated morals etc, then we have presumed truths that are beliefs in our own existence. It is then equally wrong to put everything in the same bag and say all beliefs are false, more that unsubstantiated beliefs are false.

We don’t know that there are not other levels of reality that are observable, but that the vehicle we now occupy can only observe the material it is composed of. I happen to think that energy, qualia, info and thought are all transferable in the object of, so what is material can become immaterial and vice versa ~ as like with celtic spirituality [where there is one world but according to perspective it is the otherworld or earth, there are not really heaven earth and underworld].

nice post :slight_smile:

Ah, good discussion as always my friend…

I think I misunderstood ‘spiritual’ because the term is so often associated with religion (and not rightfully so in my opinion). I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the use of vague, or rather broad terms and the importance in determining the subjective concept of that term. Especially when dealing with indefinite terms, or when using language to broaden or narrow the scope of a term.

Haha, indeed. I suppose that was a bit of an idealistic question as there are bound to be deviations from any justification to act morally. I often think Kant was right in his assertion that religion is necessary, whether it is based upon supposed ‘fact’ or not – we need a way, a reason, to act morally that transcends simple human interaction and assumed mutual respect. People loose themselves in competition and power, even to the degree of disregarding the importance and necessity of basic human rights. I feel more and more like we do not even have the capacity to uphold an ethic based on an ‘honor-system’ so to speak. Too many individual interests conflict, and our vanity alone will be more attracted to power than compromise.

I think your idea of making so called ‘evils’ into a respective way of life is interesting. Kind of reminds me of the movie “Gran Turino”, when the kid is asking Walt about all of his old tools and he says something along the lines of “every one of them has its place, each one serves a purpose” – can such an ideal ever be accepted, let alone allowed to persist? It would seem that the hunger for power is much more obvious in what we consider ‘evil’ being that such an act often has, and shows, little to no regard for anyone other than the perpetrator’s self-interest. That being said, if the ‘evils’ are allowed to prosper as any other trade or way of life, I would think those avenues to be the first to betray and corrupt the system that allows them. That is to say those ‘evil’ people involved in ‘evil’ trades would quickly grow in power simply because they would have a stronger tenancy to act only with regard to their goal – the means to that end can be disregarded, especially for a sociopath.

Perhaps the question is do we even have inherent “worth” or are we a product of our own system of values? We have certainly applied our own methods of valuation, but does our real worth transcend the apparent system of ‘balance’ that nature would dictate?

Well, I’m not trying to preach or promote an atheistic approach, I just think that the realms of religion, and so-called “faith”, do not need to be present for a person to believe he has purpose. I am speaking about people finally, and completely, taking responsibility for their actions, purpose, and direction. Give people the supposed ‘freedom’ of will and character back – allow our children to decide their respective “views” rather than trying to dictate that for them. Let people learn from life experience rather than learn how to experience life, regardless of how one views the “self”.

Atheism and materialism both seem to have formed into somewhat of a self-indulgent luxury – as if all ‘reality’, ‘movement’, ‘change’, and ‘morality’ are determined solely by us (or more specifically the subjective “you”). To me, it is egoistic and absurd to not agree that we are part of something larger. Not necessarily something intangible or mysterious, but something that contributes to our inherent nature yet transcends humanity alone. We are a product of nature indeed, but modern atheists, objectivists, materialists, and rationalists often seem to speak as if having been raptured from nature into the loving arms of superior human ‘reasoning’. We are only “rational” because we have deemed it so.

You got me again man; I actually thought about my statement after I wrote it and your reply is quite suiting. The conscience, and morality alike, must be dependent upon some fundamental belief or trust; no? As you said, there are many ways to interpret “belief”, so that conviction does not necessarily have to be one of “spirit”, “religion”, or “God”. However, to adhere to a moral code is to express a certain conviction – that is to say a belief in an objective that can be achieved through its adherence.

As an example, one must first believe that humanity is worth preserving if he is then willing to develop and adhere to a code that he believes will result in preservation and improvement.

“…Belief covers a lot of ground…” – you said it brother, a hell of a lot of ground.

Exactly the kind of response I was looking for. Our reality, or that which we can actually claim real “knowledge” of, is so minute that we cannot even honestly say we understand all of what we do observe, let alone consider what we can’t observe. But the question becomes what possibilities/hypotheticals should be considered as standard practice if we can only observe and gather information about only one? We don’t know that it is impossible to observe other possibilities, but we do know that we are only able to observe one for the time being. How can we act in consideration of what we cannot observe, experience, or accurately conceptualize? Or what if one acts without consideration of certain variables, or possibilities, out of sheer ignorance (not stupidity, just never having been introduced to the idea of said variables to begin with)?

– The Christian answer: “You go to hell, of course.” :shifty:

Thanks, I think its fine to use belief and metaphor, but indeed we must go on to explain what we mean by it.

We must also find ways to replace it, for me it is the duty of philosophy to do so.

If we look at nature this area is but a short term thing, creatures mostly find a balance after the power is distributed, and rather than compete they mostly specialise ~ each keeping to their own ground.

Only because we say so and we are dominant I suppose.

:slight_smile: Quite right, both religion and atheism don’t give us a realistic purpose, I just think we should look for one. As for responsibility, that’s difficult, how responsible are we? Would any human put into scenario x act like what that situation demands? Indeed is that not what an evil doer is? I actually think no or only up to a point, but responsibility mainly/partly has to go to the world more than the individual. We have emancipated ourselves from nature up to a point, but so much of us is still nature.

I agree, you were quite right to point out the flaw in belief for its own sake, it has to have some guts to it.

Indeed, not to mention that humanity will not survive as it stands, there are always mutations and humans of the future will be a different species. For me survival of the fittest = epic fail, nothing survives, no individual nor species or even universe survives eventually. Perhaps morality is sewn in the now?

Good point! I happen to ‘believe’ that we can observe other realities ~ simply because our fundamental nature correlates with universal fundamental natures. …but yes its all about localisation.

This is why it is important to build a reality map that is greater than our localised observations, we have I feel reached levels of understanding [in science etc] where we observe a universality that goes beyond the localised.

thanks