Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘religions

 Ideology: Not such a bad Concept before Ruling (April 2, 2009)

 

I believe that personal reflection is the best alternative for discovering a set of values (most compatible with our passions) to guide our behavior.  However, there are many obstacles for any individual to access his own “ideology” of life.  First, the school system, family upbringing, community customs and traditions are as many diverse implicit ideologies that an individual has to comprehend and sort out. Second, it presupposes that an individual has reached enough maturity to believe that his reflections can affect the course of events.  Third, it presupposes that the governing institutional systems care about individual opinions and demands and are ready to examine them seriously.  Fourth, it presupposes that the individual has enough will, energy, education, and perseverance to discover his own set of values and ideological system.

 

An ideology basically transmits perceived habits and models for interpreting social and political conditions. To a lesser extent, an ideology communicates explanations and teaches to making choices for situations and events. It is my contention that every ideology or political party implicitly exhibits a philosophical line. Since a philosophical construct is fundamentally a process of prioritizing our individual set of passions, that cannot be changed but re-ordered and then focused as a collectivity of like minded association, then it is beneficial for any ideology to debate the philosophy that is most compatible to its priority of passions.

It is up to graduate philosophers to analyze the party line and extract the corresponding philosophy out of hundreds that the human mind has constructed.  An ideology that misses opportunities to seriously debate its underlying philosophy is bound to fail as a gathering of focused passions. I am aware of a case where a fresh graduate in philosophy and a fresh member in a political party attempted to stick his personal philosophy to the ideology instead of objectively analyzing the underlying philosophy and allowing free discussion on the topic; it was an opportunity that was missed to debating a rough philosophy that had potentials to be fine tuned and accepted by the collectivity of members.

 

Most political ideologies loudly claim that the members are the subject matter, that the members are the driving force and the main concern of the ideology.  That line of thinking should be the purpose of syndicates because that is the reason for instituting syndicates and professional associations. Political parties should avoid the technical hypocrisy of proclaiming that their goals are the members’ benefit. 

Members in political ideologies are simple cogs of focused passions. Fresh members in political parties are willing to slave for free and accept all the nonsense, constraints, and abject humiliation on opinion restraints because “they need apprenticeship period” to comprehend and thoroughly learn the mystery behind an ideology, as if it was a cult. Those individual cogs who regurgitate the political lines and memorize them by rot and spew them integrally are the one who accede to the higher echelons and then reap the benefits and advantages; there are no rooms for divergence of opinions on ideological lines, otherwise, a new ideology is in the making. It is worth noting that those who accede to the higher echelons are invariably astute power grabbers but very limited spiritually because they fail to invest energy and time on personal reflections. Those limited minded “leaders” are imposed on society for needed reforms that invariably fail and leave tracks of long miseries and sufferings.

 

  Any ideology is inherently a cult with many super imposed constructs of myths and verbal testimonies of elders that are added as the rank swells; these abstract constructs are meant to increase the obscure notions and make the ideology more fascinating and enduring to the youth, simply because the ideology failed to adhere to an explicit philosophy of rational cohesion. Fundamentally, schisms are implicitly divergences on priorities of passions to focus on which are interpreted as political differences.

Religions follow the same process as ideologies and end up splitting and forming schisms and cults.  The core of religions and political ideologies are of abstract constructs with the same consequences on societies.  The main difference between religions and ideologies is that religions invariably end up adhering to a philosophy as guiding rod and are thus enduring in all levels of life for many centuries.

 

Ideologies as religions are necessary passages for individuals’ spiritual development; they are the building blocs for getting aware and hopefully caring for human miseries and problems.  Ideologies are extensions to our spirit because we need the association of people to develop our soul.

 

Find me an individual who never joined a political ideology or at least cared in his youth to learn the ideologies of his time and I can forecast that this individual will specialize in his professional discipline and be a complete illiterate outside his field of specialty; he will end up a very narrow minded person with no heart or soul to count on for change and social reforms.  I would be uncomfortable dealing with an individual who joined an ideology in youth and never felt the need to re-examine his ideology: I simple cannot believe that a young person can be bright enough and wise enough to knowing his strongest passions before dealing with the real world and people.

 

In many moments in life we asked “what is the meaning and purpose in life?”   How about we start from the obvious?  We are a bunch of jumbled passions that drive our life and we ache to re-order our passions and discover the strongest passions that mean most to us. We want to be discriminated as an individual, not on physical traits but as thinking reflecting persons that have distinct set of passions that we managed to prioritize; we finally think that we know who we are and what drove our life. We want to be at peace with our soul and spirit.

What is the Meaning of Life?   

In a previous essay “Ideology: Not such a bad Concept before Ruling” I dealt with the notions of ideologies, philosophies, and religions: their purposes and structures. I ended the essay with the following paragraph:

“In many moments in life we ask “what is the meaning of and purpose in life?”   How about we start from the obvious?  We are a bunch of jumbled passions that we all share and that drive our life; we ache by reflection to re-order our passions and sort out the strongest passions that mean most to us. We want to be discriminated as an individual, not on physical traits but as thinking reflecting persons that have distinct set of strong passions that we manage to prioritize and focus; we finally think that we know who we are and what passions drove our life. We want to be at peace with our soul and spirit.”

When we claim that we are in an introspection phase then we are explicitly finding time to sort out the driving passions that were predictive of our life path.  We all have the same passions at various degrees of power and interest that no outside processes can change or transform unless we consciously act on them to redirect our focus.  Introspections are highly useful conscious periods in our life to comprehend the strongest of our passions and set priority for future activities.  Basically, we are adopting a philosophy to life that is compatible with our strongest passions.  That is what we constantly do: we are addicted to constructing models because we are spiritual designers.  We want to categorize our passions intellectually, by our volition and labor of reflection.

Most religions have to erect an ideology and sometimes slightly update it to face changes; the sacerdotal castes main job is to pressure you to accept their set values and morals as the best that characterize you.  In fact, religions do not want you to exercise introspection and learn your own characteristics; they want to “save you that hassle” and show you the proper way; they want you to be the man among all same men with preferred set of passions instead of realizing your individuality.  Only those following the preferred “type” are selected in heaven as on earth; the black sheep of strong individuality are not recognized in heaven because only the mediocre, the humble, the naïve, the simple minded can be saved.

 

That was a good starting lead to answering the meaning of life.  I have a question: if you were to chose between knowing the “truth” or safeguarding and preserving your conscious then what would you decide?   I know that you will try to circumvent this basic query by returning a question with another one such as “Isn’t conscious linked to truth searching?” or “Isn’t knowledge an illusion?”

If even scientific facts should be recognized as statistical facts because uncontrolled observations have the tendency to show up occasionally and need to be categorized, understood, and then modeled.  If justice is fundamentally a consensus agreement among the jury then why do we cling so staunchly to truth or “absolute fact”?  If “truth” is not reachable, if we know that any predictive model can be altered by surprised “chance” observations, if it is proven at every moment in our life that uncertainty is king and it loves to convince you at the most critical events, then why fight for truth and spread disorder for an illusion?  Our scientific and rational mind is fighting the good fight and is persistent in its endeavor because it refuses impositions of religious abstract notions that have no foundations or convincing premises. Our scientific mind is not fighting “faith” but fighting the sacerdotal castes’ value systems and ideologies.

What about conscious? We can define conscious by its consequences on our nerves, its wrenching battle through sleepless nights, and through nightmares.  Conscious is the constant fighting between imposed religious set values and your strong valid passions that define your individuality.  We are battling to preserve our rightful individuality in a manner that would not shock the community as “crazy behaviors”.  Most of the time we define conscious as how the community expect us to act and decide because religious belief system is enduring and hard to conciliate with.

 

You always have a choice: truth or conscious; and this dichotomy is not to vanish any time soon and you will have to select differently at many moments. This critical choice is our daily battle and our constant struggle to find meaning to our life.

 

By God, I hope that the set values imposed on me is the correct one.  I would hate after death to face up a reality that is not compatible with what I cowardly submitted to.  I would hate to be condemned for laziness in the mind or condemned for not acting according to my own labor of reflection. Justice is ultimately an individual case and what the community believed is totally irrelevant and redundant for supporting clemency.

False Prophets (March 12, 2009)

 

            The messages of all religions are fundamentally the same.  Prophets and False Prophets have the tendency to show up occasionally for one purpose: turning the tables over the sacerdotal castes and chasing them out of the temples.  Prophets are different from False Prophets on two counts:

 

First, Prophets are lucky; they tend to sense the right moment and conditions for change. They are on a mission to destroying the highly structured and hierarchical religious institutions, the nemesis for true faith and devotion. They ruin the flourishing business of the professional guild of priesthood for short periods.  False Prophets are squarely and quickly defeated by the sacerdotal casts and thus attributed the label of “False Prophets”.  In both cases, the sacerdotal castes win in the long run and for long centuries; the very brief setbacks don’t do a dent to their business as usual.  False Prophets must necessarily lack both charisma and luck.  The wining Prophets are attributed heavy dose of charisma, whether we like it or not, whether it is true or not.

 

Second, False Prophets have no patience and their wisdoms have a lot to be desired.  They arouse people with the sword from the start and they fail to deliver the loot as quickly as expected.  False Prophets have been denied membership in the sacerdotal guild but they still want a share in the business. False prophets are bad actors and cannot play the role of the selfless leader consistently and for any advisable duration.  Most probably, they are over literate with no adequate people know-how, and thus refuse to get advised on human conditions and behavior.

 

False Prophets are definitely unlucky.  That is why “True Prophets” are countable and their coming is so far spaced out in time.  The messages of the “True Prophets” are like the Shooting Stars; their brilliance wane quickly as the vultures of extremists and confessionals grab on the remains of the martyrs.  And the vicious rotten cycle is closed.  Human kind is mostly a scared, coward, and suckered specie, with plenty of hot air to boot.  Faced with the binary choice of man and uranium, States opt to enrich uranium.

 

Note:  I exaggerated a little. The premise is valid and clear.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

September 2020
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Blog Stats

  • 1,416,483 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 768 other followers

%d bloggers like this: