4 ms·

This is the reality of bottom up organisation, and is basically a completely different metaphysics to the current Western modernist one. Going further down this

This is the reality of bottom up organisation, and is basically a completely different metaphysics to the current Western modernist one. Going further down this path of thought will lead you to ideas like constructivism, teleology, and non-dualism - all ideas that have long philosophical histories but are currently out of vogue.

ReactiveJelly 6y ago
It would be nice if someone could untie them from religion, make them simpler to understand, and bring them back into vogue, if they're so useful.
- rramadass 6y ago
  It has already been done. One of the oldest Schools of Indian Philosophy called Samkhya (which is atheistic) has a very beautiful model of the Universe/Elements/Evolution of the World which has influenced all other Schools (including Buddhism) and is worth studying. You might find the book Modern Samkhya: Ancient Spirituality for the Contemporary Atheist a good starting point.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  There are a few of us out there trying to do exactly that, including the above article.
- carapace 6y ago
  Well, there was Siddhārtha Gautama, who became Buddha. His original teachings are non-religious. I can recommend the books of David Hawkins for a modern, scientifically-informed view on the subjective experience of Reality. https://veritaspub.com/dr-hawkins/ https://veritaspub.com/dr-hawkins/ > Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. was a nationally renowned psychiatrist, physician, researcher, spiritual teacher and lecturer. The uniqueness of his contribution to humanity comes from the advanced state of spiritual awareness known as ” Enlightenment,” “Self–Realization,” and “Unio Mystica.” Rarely, if ever, has this spiritual state occurred in the life of an accomplished scientist and physician. Therefore, Dr. Hawkins was uniquely qualified to present a spiritual path that is scientifically compelling to modern society.
fallous 6y ago
Is this not similar to the philosophy of capitalism (at least as posited by Adam Smith) upon which much of modern Western thought rests? Arguably it's also very much reflected in John Locke's work as well as many philosophical foundations for democratic institutions.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  yes there are some Western philosophical foundations which treat organisation as bottom-up at certain levels of abstraction - Adam Smith on the economic level, Locke and Hobbes on the sociopolitical level, and so on. I think we have a good cultural understanding of human beings as existing in a network. But we don't consistently apply this perspective. For example: - individualism treats individuals as good or bad, successful or unsuccessful based on their outcomes without regard for the structural incentives around that person. - we still categorically divide between "life" and "not-life", treating life (and especially consciousness) as a conundrum and "not-life" as dead matter. We try our best not to look at the fuzzy edges between life and not-life. I would argue that this is a hang-over from Abrahamic dualism (the spiritual inhabiting the material), and that there is no distinction but instead a continuum from less-organised to more-organised. We do the same as the above with many other issues of category. - Identity isn't concrete in bottom-up organisation. The Ship of Theseus, for example, is not a paradox when you take a bottom-up metaphysical approach. The illusion of identity is only propagation of a pattern. TL;DR - yes, we do have some ideas around bottom-up organisation, but they're not applied consistently or across the board. If you think all this sounds like woo, then you are at least in agreement that these ideas are not Western modernist canon.
  - fallous 6y ago
    I'm not sure we treat individuals as good/bad or successful/unsuccessful based on purely on outcomes. Criminal law, for example, depends upon intent in many cases. The general biological view of viruses certainly demonstrate the absence of a categorical divide between "life" and "not life" as does the philosophy of the Turing Test. I'd argue that level of organization is less useful than the level of feedback loops in something, particularly if those loops are internal rather than external. We daily operate with the idea of the Ship of Theseus as non-paradox in any number of ways. The City of Philadelphia retains its identity not because it is composed of the same people, geography, and structures established in its founding but rather because of the role it plays as an organizational concept, the Mississippi River retains its identity despite course changes over the centuries (let alone the constant replenishment of the individual water atoms within it). I'd agree that we do not consistently apply bottom-up organization across the board, but that also necessarily means that we apply no consistent philosophy across the board. That leads to the question of how you're defining "Western modernist canon" given such an absence of a unified system.

ReactiveJelly 6y ago

It would be nice if someone could untie them from religion, make them simpler to understand, and bring them back into vogue, if they're so useful.

rramadass 6y ago
It has already been done. One of the oldest Schools of Indian Philosophy called Samkhya (which is atheistic) has a very beautiful model of the Universe/Elements/Evolution of the World which has influenced all other Schools (including Buddhism) and is worth studying. You might find the book Modern Samkhya: Ancient Spirituality for the Contemporary Atheist a good starting point.
beaconstudios 6y ago
There are a few of us out there trying to do exactly that, including the above article.
carapace 6y ago
Well, there was Siddhārtha Gautama, who became Buddha. His original teachings are non-religious. I can recommend the books of David Hawkins for a modern, scientifically-informed view on the subjective experience of Reality. https://veritaspub.com/dr-hawkins/ https://veritaspub.com/dr-hawkins/ > Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. was a nationally renowned psychiatrist, physician, researcher, spiritual teacher and lecturer. The uniqueness of his contribution to humanity comes from the advanced state of spiritual awareness known as ” Enlightenment,” “Self–Realization,” and “Unio Mystica.” Rarely, if ever, has this spiritual state occurred in the life of an accomplished scientist and physician. Therefore, Dr. Hawkins was uniquely qualified to present a spiritual path that is scientifically compelling to modern society.

fallous 6y ago

Is this not similar to the philosophy of capitalism (at least as posited by Adam Smith) upon which much of modern Western thought rests? Arguably it's also very much reflected in John Locke's work as well as many philosophical foundations for democratic institutions.

beaconstudios 6y ago
yes there are some Western philosophical foundations which treat organisation as bottom-up at certain levels of abstraction - Adam Smith on the economic level, Locke and Hobbes on the sociopolitical level, and so on. I think we have a good cultural understanding of human beings as existing in a network. But we don't consistently apply this perspective. For example: - individualism treats individuals as good or bad, successful or unsuccessful based on their outcomes without regard for the structural incentives around that person. - we still categorically divide between "life" and "not-life", treating life (and especially consciousness) as a conundrum and "not-life" as dead matter. We try our best not to look at the fuzzy edges between life and not-life. I would argue that this is a hang-over from Abrahamic dualism (the spiritual inhabiting the material), and that there is no distinction but instead a continuum from less-organised to more-organised. We do the same as the above with many other issues of category. - Identity isn't concrete in bottom-up organisation. The Ship of Theseus, for example, is not a paradox when you take a bottom-up metaphysical approach. The illusion of identity is only propagation of a pattern. TL;DR - yes, we do have some ideas around bottom-up organisation, but they're not applied consistently or across the board. If you think all this sounds like woo, then you are at least in agreement that these ideas are not Western modernist canon.
- fallous 6y ago
  I'm not sure we treat individuals as good/bad or successful/unsuccessful based on purely on outcomes. Criminal law, for example, depends upon intent in many cases. The general biological view of viruses certainly demonstrate the absence of a categorical divide between "life" and "not life" as does the philosophy of the Turing Test. I'd argue that level of organization is less useful than the level of feedback loops in something, particularly if those loops are internal rather than external. We daily operate with the idea of the Ship of Theseus as non-paradox in any number of ways. The City of Philadelphia retains its identity not because it is composed of the same people, geography, and structures established in its founding but rather because of the role it plays as an organizational concept, the Mississippi River retains its identity despite course changes over the centuries (let alone the constant replenishment of the individual water atoms within it). I'd agree that we do not consistently apply bottom-up organization across the board, but that also necessarily means that we apply no consistent philosophy across the board. That leads to the question of how you're defining "Western modernist canon" given such an absence of a unified system.