Ideological Fixation And The Grand Utopia
I only suggest that participants be as "open minded" as possible. I don't want to fight. A rational discussion. I picked the topic in order to discuss what I see as the challenges before humanity in solving the problems of mankind in order to discuss them rationally.
No one knows everything. We tend to fixate on our ideological preferences. This means that right or wrong on issues as mundane as fashion, music, sports, art, literature, politics, et cetera, as well as the religious, spiritual, and epistemological we seem to want everyone else to think like we think. Since it is extremely unlikely in even the most advanced state of existence we could possibly imagine, that some unified consensus be reached on our ideal cohabitation I would like to discuss:
1. What challenges are before us.
2. How we might address those challenges.
3. What conflicts might arise in doing so.
4. And how we might possibly resolve those conflicts.
1. So, imagining that all of humanity were working together to achieve, as much as possible, that ideal cohabitation, what challenges would the sociopolitical landscape be faced with? Does anyone, like myself, think that the political divisions on a global as well as national scale would be the most prominent and that differences of a theistic nature, i.e. atheist vs theist, would be comparatively trivial?
2. We might address the political challenges by completely removing national and international political representation to local clusters wherein social and legislative issues would be voted on by individuals of legal age by means of secure voting achieved by technological development. We make a device which each adult within a relatively small community could use to decide matters of local importance. The device would be, as much as possible, secure and tamper proof.
3. Possible conflicts would be, first off, democracy and the temptation to take social, political and monetary advantage by groups within the community as well as the security of the device itself. First and foremost though, would be the need to remove the incentive to corrupt the system.
4. This could be resolved by removing the incentive, which would have already been in part incorporated within the removal of the old system and building of the new. Specifically the removal of government and money. Technologically speaking we are at the point where we could develop such a system.
Having said that, what does it have to do with atheism vs theism? I believe that the spiritual and the technological must coincide with one another in the development of mankind's social structuring. I think it not only crucial but unavoidable.
I should define the terms: spiritual: I define spiritual not as the metaphysical, i.e. abstract, baseless, but from the Greek word pneuma (from which comes the English pneumatic, pneumonia) meaning unseen active force. Tradition, culture, religion, compelled mental inclination. I call it practical spirituality. We have to examine the subtle yet powerful forces that compel us.
Technology: the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
To summarize: we use technology for advancement without monetary incentive or political corruption, we minimize the conflict by reducing communities in size to have local governance without corruption of elected officials while examining the influence of tradition, culture, ideology, et cetera.
The question: could any alleged conflict between the spiritual and the scientific be addressed and resolved without being detrimental to the global network of communities?
No one knows everything. We tend to fixate on our ideological preferences. This means that right or wrong on issues as mundane as fashion, music, sports, art, literature, politics, et cetera, as well as the religious, spiritual, and epistemological we seem to want everyone else to think like we think. Since it is extremely unlikely in even the most advanced state of existence we could possibly imagine, that some unified consensus be reached on our ideal cohabitation I would like to discuss:
1. What challenges are before us.
2. How we might address those challenges.
3. What conflicts might arise in doing so.
4. And how we might possibly resolve those conflicts.
1. So, imagining that all of humanity were working together to achieve, as much as possible, that ideal cohabitation, what challenges would the sociopolitical landscape be faced with? Does anyone, like myself, think that the political divisions on a global as well as national scale would be the most prominent and that differences of a theistic nature, i.e. atheist vs theist, would be comparatively trivial?
2. We might address the political challenges by completely removing national and international political representation to local clusters wherein social and legislative issues would be voted on by individuals of legal age by means of secure voting achieved by technological development. We make a device which each adult within a relatively small community could use to decide matters of local importance. The device would be, as much as possible, secure and tamper proof.
3. Possible conflicts would be, first off, democracy and the temptation to take social, political and monetary advantage by groups within the community as well as the security of the device itself. First and foremost though, would be the need to remove the incentive to corrupt the system.
4. This could be resolved by removing the incentive, which would have already been in part incorporated within the removal of the old system and building of the new. Specifically the removal of government and money. Technologically speaking we are at the point where we could develop such a system.
Having said that, what does it have to do with atheism vs theism? I believe that the spiritual and the technological must coincide with one another in the development of mankind's social structuring. I think it not only crucial but unavoidable.
I should define the terms: spiritual: I define spiritual not as the metaphysical, i.e. abstract, baseless, but from the Greek word pneuma (from which comes the English pneumatic, pneumonia) meaning unseen active force. Tradition, culture, religion, compelled mental inclination. I call it practical spirituality. We have to examine the subtle yet powerful forces that compel us.
Technology: the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
To summarize: we use technology for advancement without monetary incentive or political corruption, we minimize the conflict by reducing communities in size to have local governance without corruption of elected officials while examining the influence of tradition, culture, ideology, et cetera.
The question: could any alleged conflict between the spiritual and the scientific be addressed and resolved without being detrimental to the global network of communities?
