Spiritual Reorientation 6: We Are All Prophets

originally posted by: Aphorism
A whole spiritual reorientation will be needed, where focus isn't on the non-existent aspect of spirituality in which many so called spiritual people spend their time and energy, but brought back to the existent. In my opinion, there will need to be a religion of the future.

I think that regardless of need, one is already being created. The part I have hesitance about is that no lessons will be learned from past mistakes. I dont think this is happening, and I feel that the central directive is still to CONVERT! rather than give someone a flashlight to be able to see on their own path.

I think the next stage is actually solely division. We can see it in almost every ideology, and the polarities continue to deepen. I feel there is likely to be a point where this is given a name, and direction, by those of the same type that have controlled all of these things for quite some time.

Perhaps the ideal approach, from our current junction in time and space, is to create an ideology that focuses on building and using tools as they were meant to be used. Instead of tools for conversion that limit the grandeur of creation, they would be ones that simply allow each of us to explore on our own and share our findings with one another. This type of thinking can be transferred to every area of experience and is one that we can also apply science and math.

That will take some time though, perhaps even a generation or two.. and then we come back to the whole long-term planning thing.

Shifting focus from meaningless profits to a real world value that increases quality of life is another good step. The strings are already being pulled on this one.

The next jump in technology is a big one. We have not grown alongside our technological prowess, and that serves some issues. So, the next step will be a judgment of sorts. If we use it to build structures together, we will find ourselves at heights never before achieved. If we use it to destroy.. then that will be that.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: AfterInfinity

It's the same general principle. Labels provide descriptions, and thus definitions, no matter what they are printed on or what they are attached to. That's why we call them "labels". And if you're going to continue splitting hairs, then there's no point continuing this supposedly honest discussion.

It isn't the same general principle. Shall I call you an "empty", or a "red", or a "salty", or a "funny"? No because those are descriptive words. They are not labels. If me splitting hairs simply means you refuse to agree with me, perhaps an honest discussion is indeed out of the question.

Here's the dictionary definition so perhaps we can agree. I will bold the meaning of the word I am referring to:

label |ˈlābəl|
noun
1 a small piece of paper, fabric, plastic, or similar material attached to an object and giving information about it.
• a piece of fabric sewn inside a garment and bearing the brand name, size, or instructions for care.
• the piece of paper in the center of a phonograph record giving the artist and title.
• a company that produces recorded music: independent labels.
• the name or trademark of a fashion company: she plans to launch her own designer clothes label.
• a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, esp. one that is inaccurate or restrictive: my reluctance to stick a label on myself politically.
• (in a dictionary entry) a word or words used to specify the subject area, register, or geographical origin of the word being defined.
• Computing a string of characters used to refer to a particular instruction in a program.
• Biology & Chemistry a radioactive isotope, fluorescent dye, or enzyme used to make something identifiable for study.
2 Heraldry a narrow horizontal strip, typically with three downward projections, that is superimposed on a coat of arms by an eldest son during the life of his father.
3 Architecture another term for dripstone.

"inaccurate" and "restrictive" are also labels which may be construed as inaccurate or restrictive. Irony abounds.

My use of the phrase "splitting hairs" is in reference to trivial semantic arguments. What you are describing is something that I see as an inevitable result of communication. Where expressions are used, ideas are funneled. Where a concept is translated, the imagination is fitted with a straitjacket until someone sees fit to break one wall or another and thereby change the entire concept. But any language which does not employ such practices might as well be a car without bolts and nuts. The whole thing is liable to become something else entirely given the right influence, and woe to anyone sitting inside when it does.

In other words, what you are describing is, I think, an inescapable consequence and an inevitable reality of communication. The only realistic means of attaining communication without the application of labels is to channel those thoughts directly, eliminating the need for translation. But obviously, we haven't reached that point. And while encouraging others to remain aware of the dangers in translation and interpretation, it's folly to think that you can fully eliminate the dangers of mobile transportation without elimination mobile transportation in itself. So in short, I think your opinion of labels borders on being unreasonable for the reasons I just explained.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Visitor2012

 

So then why are you writing threads about spiritual realignment?

Why are you not?

Because I don't feel the need to and I believe people have enough knowledge already, and enough confusion to go along with it. Your turn to answer the question.

a reply to: EviLCHiMP

Divine love is self sacrifice if a label must be placed on it.

Self sacrifice can be looked at as a form of ego centric selfishness as whilst I dont propose we are automatons we allow the ego to self sacrifice for delayed gratification. Divine love if we hold to the idea that the divine is something we attain towards is selfish in and of itself looked at logically.

A common example often quoted by christians of divine love is the willingness of Jesus Christ accepting his crusifixion.
A closer reading of the accounts in the testament show that Peter was armed and ready for a confrontation.