What do you think of these concepts?

[DT Strain]

I'm playing around with some ideas for some philosophy writings where I plan to being together a lot of different aspects into a cohesive whole (I haven't done that yet, so don't expect this to be cohesive hehe). While I have a lot more detail worked out that what follows, here are some of the elements...

1) A naturalistic material view of the universe (secular).
2) An objective universe.
3) Compatible with scientific methodology and current understanding.
4) meshes concepts of Taoist concept of "Li", Stoic concept of "logos", with Complex systems thoery and chaos theory.
5) Meshes Buddhist and Jainist concepts of non-attachment with Stoic concept of not seeking to control what we cannot. Also brings in Heideggers concept of enframing, into one concept of avoiding suffering and proper perspective.
6) With this concept, supports "good life" and a set of virtues appropriate to that philosophy, bringing together western and eastern virtues, along with modern ethical concepts.
7) Wraps up with several observations designed to raise appreciation for non-supernatural spirituality, including several excercises and spiritual activities based on secular concepts.
8) All worded in a very easy-read format, very accessible.
9) While not inclusive of the supernatural, should be compatible with, and useful to those of nearly any belief regarding the supernatural (in other words, it doesn't address that sphere).

What are your impressions? Any helpful advice or ideas? Thanks much

[lunamoth]

Hi DTS, Sounds intriguing. Can you give more info about number 7 on your list?

lunamoth

[Paladin]

Ah a person of vison! I honor your ambition, and would very much like to see how all of this is reconciled in your philosophy. I am reminded of something I read once. Carlos Castenada I think, the teacher Don Juan (?) suggested that in any path you choose, make sure it has heart.

Good luck friend, I admire your energy

[path_of_one]

Sounds interesting. I'd love to read more posts that detail more of what you're thinking. I think there are quite a few of us who blend something like what you are talking about with belief systems about the supernatural. Personally, I've been influenced by modern druidry, taoism, buddhism, and string theory among others, that have enmeshed with a liberal Christ-centered mysticism. So blending these non-supernatural and supernatural spiritualities can work.

[DT Strain]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi DTS, Sounds intriguing. Can you give more info about number 7 on your list?

lunamoth

Thanks Lunamoth,

I have a section planned that is intended to give a more existential perspective on the world we live in as being a "wonderous" world such as the magical or science fiction worlds we imagine in our stories. In doing so, I draw parallels between science and historic concepts of magic.

Secondly, I hope to highlight aspects of spirituality that offer fulfillment, contentment without requiring a supernatural or paranormal element. The goal here is to provide a sense of the emotional and a sense of wonder that has been the exclusive domain of supernatural philosophies in the past. I should also intend to point out the fact that early philosophies did not envision gods and heavens as being in a separate "supernatural" realm, but as natural explanations to our world.

In doing this, I plan to bring spiritual language into the realm of naturalistic philosophy, perhaps to a point that may be uncomfortable to some. Nevertheless, I think these are important human needs to address, and this cannot be accomplished with scholarly philosophy-professor speak.

The excercises portion will include meditation, contemplation, and reflection. As well as what I call "Existential Deliberation", "Virtue Fortification", and "Bioneural Reincarnation".

Lastly, I should add that, although these things will not include references beyond the natural world, I do not expect to spend time "debunking". My goal is to provide ideas that are useful to anyone, even those who do hold supernatural beliefs. So my hope is that these will be compatible to both theist and atheistic worldviews.

[DT Strain]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Ah a person of vison! I honor your ambition, and would very much like to see how all of this is reconciled in your philosophy. I am reminded of something I read once. Carlos Castenada I think, the teacher Don Juan (?) suggested that in any path you choose, make sure it has heart.

Good luck friend, I admire your energy

Thanks so much for your encouraging words Paladin

[DT Strain]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Sounds interesting. I'd love to read more posts that detail more of what you're thinking. I think there are quite a few of us who blend something like what you are talking about with belief systems about the supernatural. Personally, I've been influenced by modern druidry, taoism, buddhism, and string theory among others, that have enmeshed with a liberal Christ-centered mysticism. So blending these non-supernatural and supernatural spiritualities can work.

Yes I agree that many people sort of pick and choose elements from different philosophies and religions that make sense to them. I am no exception. But usually for most people this is sort of a "choose as you go" activity. My hope is to lay something down in a structured and cohesive manner that gells together and makes sense to myself and hopefully to others (and to do so in an informal easy-read sort of manner).

I'm certain that not everyone would pick the same elements as me in that "mixture", or choose to blend them in just the same way, but hopefully my ideas will be of some use.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by DT Strain

Lastly, I should add that, although these things will not include references beyond the natural world, I do not expect to spend time "debunking". My goal is to provide ideas that are useful to anyone, even those who do hold supernatural beliefs. So my hope is that these will be compatible to both theist and atheistic worldviews.

So, what you are saying, I think, is that you are planning to take a positive approach, rather than a negative one; that is, you intend not to tear down any system of thought, but to mesh (as you say) several separate yet similar philosophies. Although your philosophy will be inclusive, it will not approach the idea of a supernatural God; but since it is inclusive, your intention is that it should not be incompatible with those who practice religions that believe in a supernatural God.

That said, I think positive and inclusive approaches are always nice. Good luck; sounds exhausting to me! I certainly don't have the ambition to attempt or the attention span to follow through with something of this magnitude. Call me easily distracted.

Oooooh--what's that over there?

[DT Strain]

Originally Posted by Pathless

So, what you are saying, I think, is that you are planning to take a positive approach, rather than a negative one; that is, you intend not to tear down any system of thought, but to mesh (as you say) several separate yet similar philosophies. Although your philosophy will be inclusive, it will not approach the idea of a supernatural God; but since it is inclusive, your intention is that it should not be incompatible with those who practice religions that believe in a supernatural God.

Yes, exactly right. I hope to focus on the good advice for living found in these various works and leave belief about the supernatural up to the individual

That said, I think positive and inclusive approaches are always nice. Good luck; sounds exhausting to me! I certainly don't have the ambition to attempt or the attention span to follow through with something of this magnitude. Call me easily distracted.

Oooooh--what's that over there?

Haha, thanks. While it may be a somewhat tedious effort to create, my hope is that the final product will be smooth and easy for the reader.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Sounds like a very worthwhile endeavor, DT Strain. The Truth is One. But the sages refer to it by many names.

[DT Strain]

Thanks Abogado!

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Originally posted by Pathless
That said, I think positive and inclusive approaches are always nice. Good luck; sounds exhausting to me! I certainly don't have the ambition to attempt or the attention span to follow through with something of this magnitude. Call me easily distracted.

Oooooh--what's that over there?

Ah! Another follower of the Feline Path! I, too, am one who is very easily distracted if someone or something doesn't hold me spellbound (I don't know how many times I've had trouble in school for "wandering grey matter".)

I'm not saying I need to be entertained, mind you, but I once spent an entire lecture on programing in Visual C++ talking with a gentleman about one of his sketches of a mecha design he was working on (I flunked the class.)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

in response to number 7 on your list

7) Compatible with scientific methodology and current understanding.

I remember something interesting that occurred to me whilst reading Steven Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"

Through scientific reasoning which I think I understood at the time but cant remember now, Dr Hawking came to the (apparently popular) conclusion that for Quantum Mechanics or general relativity to work, there must be 23 dimentions in the universe. We can only percieve 4 of them.

Hawking explained this by suggesting that the other 19 dimensions never expanded with the rest of the big bang and are still all screwed up in the centre of the universe, which didnt make much sense to me.

For me, this comes a long way towards proving the basic tennant of Buddhism which is that our minds are too deluded to percieve the universe in its true state, perhaps the enlightened ones can percieve all of these dimensions that we know to exist, and more dimensions still that we have no knowledge of. My idea is a little vague I know, but what Im trying to say is that there is some scientic evidence of whole dimensions of the universe that our minds simply cannot grasp.

[DT Strain]

Awaiting,

True, there is some evidence to suggest there are dimensions we cannot directly percieve. In my writing, I plan to be careful about making claims about the nature of these universes beyond which we currently know. In other words, I'm not going to fill them up with all manner of extra imagined content to explain various unknowns.

What I indend to do is leave explanation and proclamation of reality to science and focus on advice for living a meaningful life, within what we do have proven about our world. So, by #7 I mean that my philosophy will be compatible with what's proven scientifically, but also not jump ahead of science to try and fill in gaps. I don't believe that there is really a philosophic need for that in my concept. But that's a very interesting point about the possibilities of further dimensions!

Thanks

[Vajradhara]

er... not to be coy...


but what is the Buddhist concept of non-attachment?