💾 Archived View for pr1ba.ru › gemlog › eng › 26_02_2021_eng.gmi captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The main problem of any dogmatized religion is that any quality level that surpasses dogmas proper is subjected to merciless criticism. Moreover, not criticizing the conclusions as such, but proceeds to pressure on the individual.
An attempt to rationalize dogma or rise to a level above ordinary "paganism" (one way or another, at the moment, almost all recognized religious institutions are one or another phenomenon of "paganism", even if it tries to fight the personification of the concept of God), this attempt will be criticized in the harshest form, with humiliation of the individual.
The humiliation of the individual is not in the fact that critics can sink to the level of insults, but in the pressure on the individual in moral terms. In this case, a person will face an inner fear of going beyond the boundaries of the outlined concepts, despite the logical contradictions about "God is the giver of goods and freedoms." This fear is sometimes called "trembling", but fear cannot have anything to do with the original concept of God, as a metaphorical image of the best qualities in the universe.
Love - as a quality (if you like as a verb), cannot have anything to do with fear in any of its forms. We can face a human paradox when we attach some positive qualities to a non-permanent object, calling it love. But before the actual collision with the reality of the object's mutability, we will blindly be attached to the contemplation of "positive" qualities. Positive in the universal sense. Completely forgetting for this moment that nothing material can have an absolute quality. And in this regard, the concept of God is precisely that metaphor in which absoluteness, as a fact, cannot contain anything negative. Accordingly, "love", as the highest quality of the absolute, is obliged to deprive us of fear. There are attempts at the highest definition of love within the framework of material existence, but all of them will also face the logical problems of expressing these very qualities on the "created" level.
The experience of the affects of cognition, called revelation, is precisely the "delight" with which we can face lifting the veil of the secrets of the universe. But any affect is finite and I have not met a person who would be able to stay in it at his own discretion.
The essence of these affects has nothing to do with the described fear. This is a subjective and short-term experience of the greatness of a cognizable object - which is absolute and constant, while we can neither express nor describe it. We are still forced to remain in the position of the blind feeling the elephant.
Many conclusions follow from this, which in any case will lead to criticism of any religious system, even if its founders experienced prolonged affects and were able to formulate their experience in thesis. Delights about any "personality" as matter are probably not worthy of attention, because it is an attempt to sublimate the affects on their own emotional level, which would rather lead the person into a state of "spiritual stagnation", and refusal from further search, under the actual pressure of religious dogma.
Dogma really cannot be an axiom, at best it is a theorem that requires proof. Considering that we have nothing in our arsenal except reason itself, we can and must resort only to it. If we remain all in the same stagnation on affects, most likely we will not have enough life time to try to understand the absolute qualities, provided that we are generally able to cognize them.
Justification of stagnation by sacralizing "past experience" will always lead to apathy in the present moment, making it impossible to use one's own mind for reasoning. As experience shows, no generation previously had the experience that we have now, and humanity, sacralizing the past experience, will forever stand still, if it does not dare to abandon the ossified forms.
We have definitely passed the point of singularity in the storage and transmission of information. And I hope in one step we are marking time from the possibility of perceiving information faster - this is what will save us from the time frame as much as our physiology will allow. In any case, the accumulation of experience and its transfer must lead to a permanent revision of it in time, leaving space only for its aesthetic perception, without any sacralization and attempts to taboo changes.