Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits

[Apanthropinist]

Gibbon’s 18th century views that coloured history for so long have been almost entirely rejected by modern historians and archeologists, and yours is even more extreme than Gibbon’s!

You can try this Wikipedia article for a summary of this, maybe go straight to the “Evaluation” section -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuti ... prov=sfti1

Persecution and murder are not actually very good ways to change people’s beliefs, and usually end up doing the opposite. Yes the past was brutal in many ways, as Christians themselves experienced under several emperors. But the idea that Christians “slaughtered all the pagans” is just plain wrong, one of the many legacies from the anti-religious bias of Gibbon that influenced the study of history for centuries.

Not very comforting to know that this isn't considered extreme:

"According to St Augustine and others, Jesus had clearly authorised forcible conversions: "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (Luke 14:23). Whole countries were won over in this way. The Saxons were forcibly converted at sword point. Charlemagne offered them the choice of adopting Christianity or instant death. In a single day, according to Christian Chronicles, 4,500 Saxons chose to die rather than forsake their own religion."

[AshvinP]

But obstinate questionings of that sort, if pursued further, would leave no time to give an idea of the actual substance of the book.

Remind you of anyone? Should I hide in the corner

I'll get back to you on this later because I find Jaynes work hard to digest in the sense we are asked to 'think' in a way entirely unfamiliar to us. He does make some great points about how some languages have no specific time references, the Hopi for one.....and I find that really interesting.

I may have to take a bit of time Ashvin because I need to start learning this programming and it may consume me. If you do get a chance to read Jaynes book I would recommend it because while I am not persuaded I also think there is a lot to ponder in there as a matter of perspective.

Based on Barfield's review, it sounds like Jaynes provided a lot of solid "psycho-historical" evidence for the 'evolution of consciousness', as Barfield himself provided in his works predating Jaynes, along with all the others referenced in Part 2 of my essay, but he did not go far enough to realize the true implication of all that evidence was that there are not two physical brain hemispheres producing two different types of consciousness, but rather one Consciousness expressing itself in two polar opposite ways. I would also point out McGilchrist, who you referenced before, also holds to the idealist interpretation of the right-left hemispheres, at least as far as I can tell from his interviews.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Not very comforting to know that this isn't considered extreme:

"According to St Augustine and others, Jesus had clearly authorised forcible conversions: "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (Luke 14:23). Whole countries were won over in this way. The Saxons were forcibly converted at sword point. Charlemagne offered them the choice of adopting Christianity or instant death. In a single day, according to Christian Chronicles, 4,500 Saxons chose to die rather than forsake their own religion."

Of course, none of this is an argument against the original unadulterated teachings actually being a Divinity-based idealism intended to show how everyone in essence is conceived of a sole conscious unicity, who, like we in this forum, need not be compelled at sword point to understand this, but only an argument against any subsequent bastardization and corruption of such a teaching that could only be enforced at sword point.

[Simon Adams]

Not very comforting to know that this isn't considered extreme:

"According to St Augustine and others, Jesus had clearly authorised forcible conversions: "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (Luke 14:23).

Augustine was specifically and explicitly referring to the Donatists, who used terrorist tactics against the church (including attacking and nearly killing his assistant). Originally he fought against any action against them, preferring to keep the debate at the level of theology. But even when he changed his mind after things got completely out of control, he still was adamantly against killing or physical torture, which many in the Roman state wanted to secure peace.

It was explicitly because the Donatists were Christian that Augustine considered any “compelling” measures at all based on their beliefs appropriate - in his role as Bishop they were effectively “our problem”.

If you think his position on this was unreasonable, I’m happy to share details of how the Roman state usually acted against groups threatening the stability of the empire, to give you an idea of the restraint and balance Augustine was trying to bring to the situation.

Whole countries were won over in this way. The Saxons were forcibly converted at sword point. Charlemagne offered them the choice of adopting Christianity or instant death. In a single day, according to Christian Chronicles, 4,500 Saxons chose to die rather than forsake their own religion[/i]."

I’m not going to defend every action ordered by every tyrant from Charlemagne onwards who happened to be Christian, just as I’m sure you don’t want to have to defend Stalin, Mau, Pol Pot etc. This was a fairly isolated incident for Charlemagne as far as I understand, as he quickly learnt that it just made ‘martyrs’. However as the old saying goes, it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

Your statement “Whole countries were won over in this way” is interesting. I’m just watching “The Violence Paradox” which explores Steven Pinker’s research on human violence, which goes back through the archeology to show that levels of ‘tribe on tribe’ violence goes back to the earliest homo sapiens, in fact back to Neanderthals and before. There is good reason to think that violence is default behaviour in humans. The idea that there were previously peaceful societies everywhere, that didn’t invade each other and impose their ways, until christians came along, is nonsense. Yes there are shaman tribes that are peaceful, but equally Ghengis Khan was shaman and killed around 10% of the world’s population, and he is considered to be one of the main embodiments of the ‘sky father’ to Mongolian shamans.

One of the main arguments being put forward for the decline of individual violence (with totalitarian/Marxist state deaths being a notable exception) is the idea of equality, which derives from the biblical idea of all people being created equally before god. I’m not a great fan of theosophy in general, but Ashvin is absolutely correct that christian ideas have shaped the consciousness of the west over time, of what we consider normal and acceptable. If you then retrospectively apply enlightenment, liberal ideas that evolved out of christianity, back onto times where these assumed values had not yet soaked into the wider culture as norms, you’re not really doing history. I recommend Tom Holland’s “Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind” to get a better insight into the reality. A quote from a professor on this TV program right now: “Until recently, the history of mankind was one where slavery, rape and warfare were the norm, not the exception.”

This is one of the big dangers of postmodern/marxist/post structuralist ideologies taking over our universities and culture today. There is an assumption that when you remove the religion which “causes all the violence”, you will “go back” to a default state where everyone gets on with each other in peace. You would have thought the insane scale of bloodshed in the 20th century would have taught us a valuable lesson…

PS: I realise I’m venturing around issues like politics here and want to avoid getting drawn into that, but I do think there are important philosophical and even metaphysical issues here. If we can’t see the real things that drive violence in our past clearly, we will eventually keep on repeating them.

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[AshvinP]

PS: I realise I’m venturing around issues like politics here and want to avoid getting drawn into that, but I do think there are important philosophical and even metaphysical issues here. If we can’t see the real things that drive violence in our past clearly, we will eventually keep on repeating them.

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Simon, I completely agree. The history of early Christian thought is of vital importance for philosophical issues today, but that is assuming we are surveying it as accurately as possible. I appreciate your effort in this regard and I hope you keep it coming!

[Simon Adams]

Simon, I completely agree. The history of early Christian thought is of vital importance for philosophical issues today, but that is assuming we are surveying it as accurately as possible. I appreciate your effort in this regard and I hope you keep it coming!

One thing I would add, is the reason I mention that the new ideas are dangerous, is that although Buddhism is very different to Christianity, it clearly encourages people away from violence, towards compassion etc. I don’t know the history of the east as well, but presumably that tradition has done something similar to quell some of the natural instincts of man (and of course likewise you will always have exceptions). I’m of course not suggesting that is the raison d’etre for good religion, but it’s worth saying in this context.

[Apanthropinist]

Your statement “Whole countries were won over in this way” is interesting.

It's not my statement Simon, I was using a quote. I don't want to get into an argument about whose experts are best and should be used, ie Poisoning The Wells (Discrediting the sources used by your opponent.).

....but I would absolutely agree with this:

There is good reason to think that violence is default behaviour in humans.

....but then this:

The idea that there were previously peaceful societies everywhere, that didn’t invade each other and impose their ways, until christians came along, is nonsense.

Yes, it would be an unreasonable and unsupportable claim to make, 'everywhere', and is why I didn't make it. It would also be a fallacious attack if a person said, "A bad thing happened here." and you then turn it into "Oh, so you're saying good things happened everywhere else until xxxx came along." It's a form of Argument Of The Beard.

One of the main arguments being put forward for the decline of individual violence (with totalitarian/Marxist state deaths being a notable exception) is the idea of equality, which derives from the biblical idea of all people being created equally before god.

Jordan Peterson makes this same argument and does so very well. You could argue that Magna Cart in 1215, though mainly about the Barons having a tantrum, contained implicit reference to this, ie, trial by jury of peers, habeus corpus etc. Unfortunately we must also remember the killing of pagans who refused to convert....and the crusades etc....otherwise we're 'putting lipstick on a pig' so to speak.

I’m not a great fan of theosophy in general, but Ashvin is absolutely correct that christian ideas have shaped the consciousness of the west over time, of what we consider normal and acceptable. If you then retrospectively apply enlightenment, liberal ideas that evolved out of christianity, back onto times where these assumed values had not yet soaked into the wider culture as norms, you’re not really doing history. I recommend Tom Holland’s “Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind” to get a better insight into the reality. A quote from a professor on this TV program right now: “Until recently, the history of mankind was one where slavery, rape and warfare were the norm, not the exception.”

One of the areas I studied at Uni prior to choosing my honours subject was the arc of development from the Reformation up to the beginning of Modernity. Curiously enough, started with Luther and his protest (criticism of Christian church - Catholicism) and ended with Nietzsche (criticism of Christianity in general). One of the arguments is that out of Luther's protest and the subsequent Protestant Work Ethic, the tools of rational criticism emerged and eventually destroyed God (Nietzsche). Then Nietzsche's point was made in the 20th Century, as Peterson notes of Nietzsche's critique "How many millions dead do you need before your point is made?" In a sense, it died at the hands of its' own evolution (God/Religion/Meta-narrative).

This is one of the big dangers of postmodern/marxist/post structuralist ideologies taking over our universities and culture today. There is an assumption that when you remove the religion which “causes all the violence”, you will “go back” to a default state where everyone gets on with each other in peace. You would have thought the insane scale of bloodshed in the 20th century would have taught us a valuable lesson…

See what I said above. I think the point is not so much that this happens when we remove religion, although it can and does, it happens when we remove any meta-narrative and then try to fill the void with our unacknowledged murderous shadow arising out of ideology, which is what Nietzsche was warning us about. So meta-narrative may be a better way of looking at it and strangely enough, that is what analytical idealism is....a meta-narrative.

PS: I realise I’m venturing around issues like politics here and want to avoid getting drawn into that, but I do think there are important philosophical and even metaphysical issues here. If we can’t see the real things that drive violence in our past clearly, we will eventually keep on repeating them.

I'm entirely onboard with that view but I'd also come back to what you noted "There is good reason to think that violence is default behaviour in humans."

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

....and he, for certain sure, knew what he was talking about. I'd also add the related following, from Jung:

"Naturally, society has an indisputable right to protect itself against arrant subjectivisms, but, in so far as society itself is composed of de-individualised persons, it is completely at the mercy of ruthless individualists. Let it band together into groups and organisations as much as it likes – it is just this banding together and the resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it succumb so readily to a dictator. A million zeros joined together do not, unfortunately, add up to one.

Ultimately everything depends on the quality of the individual, but the fatally shortsighted habit of our age is to think only in terms of large numbers and mass organizations, though one would think that the world had seen more than enough of what a well-disciplined mob can do in the hands of a single madman."

“With a truly tragic delusion,” Carl Jung noted, “these theologians fail to see that it is not a matter of proving the existence of the light, but of blind people who do not know that their eyes could see. It is high time we realized that it is pointless to praise the light and preach it if nobody can see it. It is much more needful to teach people the art of seeing.”

Now I really do have to start this programming course but I'll keep checking in and thanks for your comments Simon. If I ever fancied having a stab at a PhD, and I don't, it would be discussions of philosophical and metaphysical issues around a meta-view of the arc of human development, social/political/historical/psychological etc

[AshvinP]

Simon, I completely agree. The history of early Christian thought is of vital importance for philosophical issues today, but that is assuming we are surveying it as accurately as possible. I appreciate your effort in this regard and I hope you keep it coming!

One thing I would add, is the reason I mention that the new ideas are dangerous, is that although Buddhism is very different to Christianity, it clearly encourages people away from violence, towards compassion etc. I don’t know the history of the east as well, but presumably that tradition has done something similar to quell some of the natural instincts of man (and of course likewise you will always have exceptions). I’m of course not suggesting that is the raison d’etre for good religion, but it’s worth saying in this context.

Simon - I didn't quite follow your comment. Which "new ideas" are you referring to?

[Simon Adams]

It's not my statement Simon, I was using a quote. I don't want to get into an argument about whose experts are best and should be used, ie Poisoning The Wells (Discrediting the sources used by your opponent.).

Fair enough, and I’m not one to often appeal to “mainstream consensus” (Kuhn and all that), but Gibbon was accepted as a “poisoned well” 30 years ago.

....but then this:

The idea that there were previously peaceful societies everywhere, that didn’t invade each other and impose their ways, until christians came along, is nonsense.

Yes, it would be an unreasonable and unsupportable claim to make, 'everywhere', and is why I didn't make it. It would also be a fallacious attack if a person said, "A bad thing happened here." and you then turn it into "Oh, so you're saying good things happened everywhere else until xxxx came along." It's a form of Argument Of The Beard.

I think you should look at the data. Whilst it’s difficult to get balanced data the further you go back, and some details are controversial, the overwhelming evidence from nearly all digs from the Palaeolithic through to early historical times across the world shows a high proportion of deaths being due to violence. It ranges from 5% - 60% of deaths, and is consistent across sites. Bashed in skulls, arrow heads in various places, cave paintings of battles etc. This is not “a bad thing happened here”, it’s ‘bad shit happened everywhere’.

Jordan Peterson makes this same argument and does so very well. You could argue that Magna Cart in 1215, though mainly about the Barons having a tantrum, contained implicit reference to this, ie, trial by jury of peers, habeus corpus etc. Unfortunately we must also remember the killing of pagans who refused to convert....and the crusades etc....otherwise we're 'putting lipstick on a pig' so to speak.

I think I addressed your “ Argument Of The Beard” on pagan killings, yes it did happen at times but we have very different views on these things now. Julius Caesar once ordered his troops to cut down people in the crowd who were interrupting his triumph march by standing in the wrong place, and that’s a small footnote in history because people just had a different view of these things then.

With the crusades, you do realise they were a response to an invasion, at the request of the people who lived there at the time and the Byzantines? In the end they got out of control and terrible things were done on both sides, but ultimately it was a response to a violent invasion by expansionist tribes that had never lived there.

See what I said above. I think the point is not so much that this happens when we remove religion, although it can and does, it happens when we remove any meta-narrative and then try to fill the void with our unacknowledged murderous shadow arising out of ideology, which is what Nietzsche was warning us about. So meta-narrative may be a better way of looking at it and strangely enough, that is what analytical idealism is....a meta-narrative.

Yes and I’m a supporter of analytic idealism. I certainly don’t agree with Bernardo on everything, but what I like about it is that he generally doesn’t go further than what he needs to make sense of things. I have my own reason to have trust in revelation, which from my perspective adds ‘downwards’ ‘knowledge’ to what we can establish ‘upwards’ through reason, science and meditation. In terms of this upward side, analytic idealism is a clear and consistent framework. There are risks in analytic idealism (it’s kind of upside down from a theological perspective), but it’s a vast improvement on empty materialism and the damage that does.

....and he, for certain sure, knew what he was talking about. I'd also add the related following, from Jung:

"Naturally, society has an indisputable right to protect itself against arrant subjectivisms, but, in so far as society itself is composed of de-individualised persons, it is completely at the mercy of ruthless individualists. Let it band together into groups and organisations as much as it likes – it is just this banding together and the resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it succumb so readily to a dictator. A million zeros joined together do not, unfortunately, add up to one.

Ultimately everything depends on the quality of the individual, but the fatally shortsighted habit of our age is to think only in terms of large numbers and mass organizations, though one would think that the world had seen more than enough of what a well-disciplined mob can do in the hands of a single madman."

“With a truly tragic delusion,” Carl Jung noted, “these theologians fail to see that it is not a matter of proving the existence of the light, but of blind people who do not know that their eyes could see. It is high time we realized that it is pointless to praise the light and preach it if nobody can see it. It is much more needful to teach people the art of seeing.”

Now I really do have to start this programming course but I'll keep checking in and thanks for your comments Simon. If I ever fancied having a stab at a PhD, and I don't, it would be discussions of philosophical and metaphysical issues around a meta-view of the arc of human development, social/political/historical/psychological etc

Yes and this is key. Humans have the ability to be vengeful, cruel, selfish, as well as forgiving, kind and willing to sacrifice their own good for others. What makes a person choose the latter, not in a ‘give in to the world’ sense, but as a positive choice? There needs to be a certain detachment from things, which can come from practices like meditation, contemplation etc. But there is also a need to navigate that shadow within, and I think Dante described that as well as anyone. A kind of self awareness, of discernment. None of it is easy work though, so how do you motivate people to ‘cut out that part of their own heart’ as Solzhenitsyn put it? Ignatius created the “Spiritual Exercises” for this purpose, but even just spending 20 mins each evening examining your conscience from the day can more difficult to keep up than going for a run!

[Simon Adams]

Simon, I completely agree. The history of early Christian thought is of vital importance for philosophical issues today, but that is assuming we are surveying it as accurately as possible. I appreciate your effort in this regard and I hope you keep it coming!

One thing I would add, is the reason I mention that the new ideas are dangerous, is that although Buddhism is very different to Christianity, it clearly encourages people away from violence, towards compassion etc. I don’t know the history of the east as well, but presumably that tradition has done something similar to quell some of the natural instincts of man (and of course likewise you will always have exceptions). I’m of course not suggesting that is the raison d’etre for good religion, but it’s worth saying in this context.

Simon - I didn't quite follow your comment. Which "new ideas" are you referring to?

The ideas focussed on power and breaking down all the natural hierarchies in society. I’m all for a more equal society, and against the obscene wealth and obscene poverty, but you don’t fix that by turning things upside down. It’s verging onto politics however so that’s not my point - which was more in the context of healthy philosophy versus unhealthy philosophy…