FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Toward a Neo-Tribal Philosophy Part 1: The Hurdle of Religion.

For ages social control has been achieved through compliance to organized Religions, in particular, monotheistic creeds like Islam, Judaism & Christianity have been able to extert a tight grip over their practising societies; More importantly these dogmas have endured for millenia unlike 20th century Totalitarian ideologies ( mere fads by comparison).

A dedicated Priest class is able to shape the rituals & world view of an entire people, most religions share these traits:

  • Belief in the elusive existence of an Ultimate Authority Figure & Creator of the world.
  • Simplistic made-up explanations of natural phenomenas, everything works because “God” wills it.
  • The demand for complete submission to God and of course his representatives on Earth.
  • Hostility towards competing creeds & “unbelievers”.
  • Reliance on Faith & Belief instead of Logic, Reason & Reality.
  • An almost viral need to convert all individuals to their creed.
  • Resistance towards change & denial of all conflicting evidence or facts.
  • Belief of the existence on an afterlife reserved for all “true believers”.

A system like this is fit for churning out mindless automata not intelligent & responsible individuals but Priests are good salesmen: they paint their dogma as stress-relieving, “empowering” not as a pervasive domestication tool; Believers can avoid personal responsability since everything that happens is God’s work.

Religious people like to cherry-pick instances where their Holy Books “predict” or should I say guess events or contain legitimate knowledge, given the lack of consistency they are no more “right” than a broken clock (that is right twice a day, as the saying goes).

Mankind’s first religions were based on simple make-believe explanations of natural phenomenas, for millennia the absence of the scientific method and adeguate instruments prevented the accumulation of good data & knowledge.

The very first rituals like offerings and sacrificies were utilitarian in nature and purpose, they followed this simple formula:

sacrifice [X] to deity [Y] to receive advantage [Z]. Example: sacrifice goat to Farming Deity to receive a good harvest.

On the other hand Philosophy is a “lens” through which we can see and interpret reality & explain abstract concepts; Since science is “only” a tool to test hypotheses and gain knowledge it’s still up to us to decide how we are going to use knowledge.

10 responses to “Toward a Neo-Tribal Philosophy Part 1: The Hurdle of Religion.

  1. Giovanni Dannato May 13, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    And of course you can’t forget:
    -An almost viral imperative to “Go forth and multiply.”
    You need enough boots on the ground to carry out a successful occupation.

    I’m thinking in a caste segregated society, there’s a need for the old-style religions for the mid to lower orders. But above that level with modern science and access to information, no one is going to take the old time religion too seriously as literal fact.
    Like many traditional social systems, old religion relied on lack of information.
    I suppose Mormons could be a counter-example. They’re more intelligent and successful than average yet still believe in nonsensical tales of golden tablets. About the same as believing water could turn to wine, I guess.

    A new religious model might be based on an axiom that makes sense to thinking people yet still has the potential to inspire emotion and fervor in everyone else. The “1000 year Reich” may have been turned out to be a laughably brief fad, but it seems they may have achieved some level of religious fervor through secular ideologies. Hardly anyone else has managed to make any living crop sprout in that grey and barren field.
    I think I’ll make a post of my own addressing the possibility of a Spinozan non-anthropomorphic elemental concept of God as a possible foundation.

    • sunhater May 14, 2016 at 2:59 pm

      You’re totally right especially considering my previous viral analogy.

      Luckly the 1000 year Reich idea was as delusional as pies in the sky baked by a vengenful bearded man.

      In Part 2 I’m going to illustrate possible secular philosophies including my very own “Cybernetic Animism”

      In short it goes mind = soul, cybernetic as study of complex emergent systems like living beings. It’s root are based with prehistoric animism enhanced by modern scientific findings.

  2. greenmantlehoyos May 14, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    I’m going to have to respectfully disagree on the mindless automata front.

    Philosophers: Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Descartes, Bacon, Montaigne, More, Erasmus, William of Ockham, Pascal, Abelard, Niebur, MacIntyre, Barth, and the list goes on.

    Scientists: Grosseteste, Brunfels, Boyle, Newton (perhaps Unitarian but considered himself a Christian), Kepler, Leibniz, Boerhaave, Milner, Volta, Abercrombie, Silliman, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Stokes, Kelvin, ET Whittaker, Arthur Compton, Lemaitre, Wernher Von Braun, Joseph Murray, and the list goes on. And on.

    These people were not generally considered “rebels” or bad Christians at the time either. In most cases the exact opposite. Hinduism doesn’t have this track record, nor does Buddhism, and Islam really, really doesn’t either.

    You may think Christianity is wrong, you may think it’s made up, you may think it’s harmful, but don’t for a minute think that logic, reason, and reality are foreign or antagonistic concepts to the Christian religion.

    • Giovanni Dannato May 18, 2016 at 10:24 pm

      I agree, Christianity was an effective social tool for a long time. But now we need new solutions to deal with the rapid rate of change in modern socieites.
      The old faiths relied on an unexplained natural world to legitimize their supernatural claims. No fools, the church realized scientists would destroy their power.
      Plenty of people still go to church as a way to bond socially, but how many really think they are literally going to a heaven full of angels or that their asshole boss will get punished in hell and all the natural inequities of life will be corrected in the afterlife?

      Christians can appeal to the unmoved mover or the watchmaker until they go blue in the face, but all that tries to show is there’s some kind of intent at work. Time after time, I watch them make the non-sequitur jump that a god, must somehow mean it’s a Christian God!
      This desperate handflapping just reinforces for me that these customs are obsolete.

    • sunhater May 19, 2016 at 2:40 am

      Those intellectuals were great despite Christianity not because of it, the level of cognitive dissonance needed to be a christian scientist is astonishing.
      Superstitious religions are not fit for the modern world, this “God” will not protect its flock from the new technocratic elites, they will actually exploit the build-in submission instincts present in most followers.

      Civilized people don’t need the threat of violence or imaginary beings in order to behave.

      One could say that modern peons are still like automatons with their smartphones but they’re the result of millennia of selective breeding where docile obedient sheeps had a chance to reproduce while freethinkers where literally burned at the stake.

      Of course most christians always claim that the inquisitors & their ilk weren’t “true christians”.

      • greenmantlehoyos May 19, 2016 at 2:17 pm

        Thanks for publishing my comment and the reply, shows evenhandedness.

        The traditional thinking, going back centuries, meant a creator God means an orderly universe which can be studied. The Greeks also started on the scientific path without Judaism or Christianity, so I’m not saying it’s essential. However I also think there is a tremendous distortion about what you and Giovanni think Christianity means versus what it actually teaches and has taught for centuries.

        There is no dissonance because Christianity is all about reason and order. You might scoff at this because of televangelists, faith healers, etc., but when I say they represent a minority view of historical Christianity that is a proveable fact. To use it as an excuse to casually reject Christianity as “obviously” un respectable intellectually is akin to going to a bad school and deciding that literacy is a scam.

        You might say “in spite of” but nearly every name on that list said “because of” for the reason I stated.

        My purpose here isn’t to attempt to prove Christianity, but to say that a cavalier dismissal is not an easily defendable position.

      • Giovanni Dannato May 20, 2016 at 1:05 am

        @Greenmantlehoyos Your response was completely on-topic, every reason for it to show up here. I was traveling for a few days, thought I pressed approve on my phone but realized it was still in the queue when I got back.
        Christian theology with inspiration from pagan philosophers has some decently persuasive arguments for a creative intent in the universe. The problem for me at least is that there’s no way to specifically link this intent with the teachings of Christ or that such an intelligence has any special interest in human affairs at all. At most we end up arguing for a very weak theism. Our only evidence of what it “wants” (if it has desires) is what we see in the natural world. This would seem to me to clash with the St. Paul/Platonic thesis of Christianity that our world is a sort of illusory testing ground for our souls.

      • Giovanni Dannato May 20, 2016 at 1:23 am

        @Sunhater I suppose I have some mixed feelings about it. The church put a bunch of educated guys in the same place with no sexual distractions and in some cases gave them lots of free time to pursue pet projects. Look at someone like Gregor Mendel for example. Not a bad way to set up a societal R and D department in a world where there was a lot less wealth. There’s no way in hell someone with a normal life and a family to feed would have time to experiment with pea plants.
        On the other hand, I’ve wondered if weeding smart people out of the gene pool with the practice of celibacy may have had some dysgenic impact.
        I think for many ordinary people, an appeal to fear may actually be the best way to improve collective behavior. An old-style religion I think may still be useful for governing lower castes.

  3. Sam J. May 15, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    Catharism maybe. If I was made to choose a religion this is what I would say I was.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

    The Catharist believe that the old testament was not God but a demon. It would fit right in with people who worship Jesus. Here’s what Jesus said,”JESUS CHRIST, speaking to the Jews in the Gospel of St. John, 8:44 ,“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is not truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. – then answered the Jews — ” (which makes it clear that Christ was addressing the Jews.) Any reading of the old testament with it’s “kill them all” attitude would be a point in favor of Catharism.

    Catharist believe the material world is evil. Any one who’s stubbed their toe can attest this is true. I won’t say matter is unreal but I don’t believe it’s eternal. Cold fusion works and can change matter to different types. In the Dewey B. Larson Reciprocal System matter eventually comes apart as the planet that used to be where the asteroid belt shows.
    Catharist believe in reincarnation. I used to think reincarnation was stupid til I read a book by Ian Stevenson. Children have been able to remember many things that only a person who died would know. If reincarnation is not true then there’s some other super strange effect.

    The Catharist were defeated by the Jesuits which were expressly created for that purpose. The saying,”Kill them all, the Lord will recognize His own” was invented by a Jesuit involved in the mass murder of the Catharist so opposing people who think this way is a good thing.Hence the wide belief that the Jesuits are evil.

    “…In contrast to the Catholic Church, the Cathars had but one sacrament, the Consolamentum, or Consolation. This involved a brief spiritual ceremony to remove all sin from the believer and to induct him or her into the next higher level as a perfect…”

    In a different post you made I argued that the reason we are so bad at conquering other countries is we just don’t have the manpower. Here’s a graph and an article that reiterates that. It’s good if you’re into that sort of thing.

    The lack of personal is stark. What’s even more salient is that to fight a guerrilla war you would need even more troops than you would need just to kill everyone. So the numbers are even worse than they look. I’ve read that the special forces were conducting raids almost nightly at times. This is just too much strain on people. Every night going in keyed up because it could be your last.

    https://blog.usni.org/2016/05/04/the-long-wars-version-of-people-first

  4. sunhater May 16, 2016 at 2:24 am

    Those memories’ origin could be genetic in nature, much like complex instincts can be inherited by many animals (horses can walk almost as soon as they’re born).

    Your comment is a blog post in its own right ! You should ask Giovanni admin permission for writing on this blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: