Tonight there’s a little political meeting in town, about dealing with the coming dismantling of Social Security, Medicare, and other such programs. I’m thinking of going, but for what I ask myself.
When I think about it our failure can be summed with “If we aren’t changing minds, we are losing.”
For any swing back towards a rational medium, we need to address the reality that millions upon millions have been brainwashed into believing God Almighty is a partisan warlord and that they are God Almighty’s messengers and warriors.
A conviction that is delusion because our Gods are created from within ourselves. Any God Almighty out there is beyond our human understanding, as the Bible itself makes clear. Any real God out there doesn’t need human warriors, our time on Earth is but a blink in Earth’s time, which itself is but a blink in “God Almighty’s” time.
All of that flows from the human being whose body created one’s idea of God. Our God’s are real, but only within our minds - outside in the physical reality of matter and molecules and geology and biology and evolution, that is cumulative change over time.
For all who believe in material evidence (science) then our deep understanding of Evolution, provides the blueprint explaining how it is that our body/brain produces our thoughts, consciousness, mind, sense of self.# Even if many get richly paid for misleading and making it sound more magical and complicated and cosmic.
#Same as the awareness/consciousness exhibited by every living creature (of course each according to its complexity and kind).
This guy comes at things from a different angle, (perhaps, on a different level, might be more accurate), I’ve no opinion, more to read and digest. And though I started this with laying out my framing of the fundamental framework, it would be interesting, even a little fun to see what else we can discuss. Anyone around here familiar with Schaefer?
"Whatever the secular is, it’s wrapped up with questions about how we think, how we know, how we reason, how we classify, stratify, and differentiate.
In that sense, the secular is connected to the history of European modernity and the European Enlightenment—the great movement, in Kant’s words, of Sapere aude: “Dare to know.”[1]
In the Enlightenment’s own grammar, the operation of reasoning is also the operation of detachment from feeling. As the inheritors of the Enlightenment tradition, scholars often take it for granted that thinking and feeling are separate, that rationality is the process of purifying thought of emotional residue. (Rival traditions like romanticism use the same coordinates—only they flip the valence, privileging feeling, which remains the antonym of thought.)
But what if the binary split between thinking and feeling is itself a historical construct—and one desperately in need of reexamination? >
What if rethinking the secular means rethinking the form and syntax of “rationality” itself?My book Wild Experiment: Feeling Science and Secularism after Darwin explores this proposition from a range of perspectives: secularism studies, science and technology studies, affect theory, psychology, and philosophy. …"
That’s a lot to take in.
Anyone familiar with Donovan Schaefer, or these ideas and where they fit into our lives?