Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Some have described my
personal overall philosophy of spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) as spiritual anarchism, which is not inaccurate insofar as one use's the term anarchism in the original sense that it was used by the man who coined it, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who wrote that liberty and non-violence are the mother, not the daughter, of order.

However, a less equivocal label for my political philosophy of political freedom might be self-government rather than the word anarchism, even though both are accurate labels as I use the terms. Likewise, a less equivocal label for my spiritual philosophy might be (1) spiritual freedom or (2) self-discipline rather than (3) spiritual anarchism, but I use all three interchangeably as synonyms, so as I use the terms either one works.

I am sure that I would disagree with Dr. Wayne Dyer about many things. Indeed, I do not doubt that any two human beings disagree about many things.

Nonetheless, especially in regard to overly organized religion, Dr. Wayne Dyer's comments may have some strong parallels to my own philosophy of so-called spiritual anarchism:

My beliefs are that the truth is a truth until you organize it, and then it becomes a lie. I don't think that Jesus was teaching Christianity, Jesus was teaching kindness, love, concern, and peace. What I tell people is don't be Christian, be Christ-like. Don't be Buddhist, be Buddha-like. Religion is orthodoxy, rules and historical scriptures maintained by people over long periods of time. Generally, people are raised to obey the customs and practices of that religion without question. These are customs and expectations from outside the person and do not fit my definition of spiritual.

What do you think of Dr. Wayne Dyer's credos as quoted above? Do you agree? If not, why not?

[Sculptor1]

My beliefs are that the truth is a truth until you organize it, and then it becomes a lie. I don't think that Jesus was teaching Christianity, Jesus was teaching kindness, love, concern, and peace. What I tell people is don't be Christian, be Christ-like. Don't be Buddhist, be Buddha-like. Religion is orthodoxy, rules and historical scriptures maintained by people over long periods of time. Generally, people are raised to obey the customs and practices of that religion without question. These are customs and expectations from outside the person and do not fit my definition of spiritual.

What do you think of Dr. Wayne Dyer's credos as quoted above? Do you agree? If not, why not?

I do not think this is really about "truth" in any sense. Most of what we can glean from the bible is based on a series of practical lies. It is doubtful whether the "teachings" of the NT amount to kindness, love, concern, and peace. Thou shall not suffer a witch to live. The OT is a history of the worse sort of racist ideology,( as the Jewish people murdered and pillaged across the middle east, commiting genocide,) which still has a devastating imact of Palestinians today.
Jesus was anti family, and his punishments for not obeying the creed is everlasting pain. Much of what we find in the Bible is cruel. At random what do we take by this; Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. Not much of a manifesto for peace and love.
Maybe he'd have done better sticking to giving advice about ERROGENOUS ZONES, because his readng of the bible is woefully lacking.

[LuckyR]

Several things.

Firstly, no doubt trying to dumb down a philosophy into rules that can be understood by the uneducated Iron Age rabble, is going to be incomplete at best and a "lie" at worst.

As to equating christ for example, to the text of the NT, or Christianity to the OT, to be fair, is an oversimplification as human texts need to be interpreted in the context of the readership of the intended audience. In this case Iron Age citizenry, not Modern thinkers.

[Ecurb]

We are all responsible for ourselves. However, we needn't reinvent the wheel. Suppose you applied your approach to other areas of thought. Would science be better off if it was strictly "personal or "individual"? Or do we see further when we stand on the shoulders of giants?

Why should we ignore the time tested orthodoxies of religion and philosophy? It is, of course,our right to do so. But is it a better way to live, or, more important, a better way to think?

Orthodoxy provides a farmework for us, even when we are heretics. That's because it is the result of the profounbd and rigorous study of scholars more more intelligent and more dedicated than you or I (or, especially, Sculptor). We may disagree with them, but without the framework we wouldn't know what we are disagreeing about.

[Ecurb]

One more thing: Obviously, organizing anything changes it. The map is not the territory; the data is not the experiment; the story is not the event. Does this make organizing things a "lie"? If we testify to the best of our ability, we are not "lying", even though organizing a complicated event into the words of a story inevitably emphasizes some things, ignores others, and offers a single perspective when there might be many.

[Tegularius]

TRUTH BECOMES A LIE WHEN ORGANIZED

Not far removed from Nietzsche who went much further in examining the masks of truth and one who Mr. Dyer must have read.

[Sculptor1]

TRUTH BECOMES A LIE WHEN ORGANIZED:

Pseudo-profound horse excrement; self evidently rubbish.

I wonder if science thinks that the organised truths of Kepler, Newton and Copurnicus when organised into the modern heliocentric system is a lie?

[Tegularius]

TRUTH BECOMES A LIE WHEN ORGANIZED:

Pseudo-profound horse excrement; self evidently rubbish.

I wonder if science thinks that the organised truths of Kepler, Newton and Copurnicus when organised into the modern heliocentric system is a lie?

That would be true, but there is one distinction. There's a huge difference between the truths we create for ourselves and those we discover. The latter has nothing to do with the former meaning not customized to our preferences.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

My beliefs are that the truth is a truth until you organize it, and then it becomes a lie. I don't think that Jesus was teaching Christianity, Jesus was teaching kindness, love, concern, and peace. What I tell people is don't be Christian, be Christ-like. Don't be Buddhist, be Buddha-like. Religion is orthodoxy, rules and historical scriptures maintained by people over long periods of time. Generally, people are raised to obey the customs and practices of that religion without question. These are customs and expectations from outside the person and do not fit my definition of spiritual.

What do you think of Dr. Wayne Dyer's credos as quoted above? Do you agree? If not, why not?

I do not think this is really about "truth" in any sense. Most of what we can glean from the bible is based on a series of practical lies. It is doubtful whether the "teachings" of the NT amount to kindness, love, concern, and peace.

In the quoted text, Dr. Dyer did not say that the New Testament of the Christian Bible taught kindness, love, concern, and peace. He said that Jesus taught kindness, love, concern, and peace.

Would science be better off if it was strictly "personal or "individual"? Or do we see further when we stand on the shoulders of giants?

Thank your your questions. I think taken together these two questions can be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as potentially presenting a false dichotomy. In no way is my philosophy (or Dyer's advice as I interpret it) suggesting one cannot figuratively stand on the proverbial shoulders of giants, be that in a spiritual context, a scientific context, a philosophical context, or any truth-seeking context.

Indeed, Dr. Dyer's comments about human organization do seem in my opinion to apply just as well to questions of science as much as spirituality. It seems to me that one who seeks to engage (or pretends to engage) in truth-seeking via either scientific or spiritual inquiry can be just as hindered by (1) the corruption of human organization, (2) the foolishness of human mobs especially when institutionally organized, and (3) faith in proclaimed human authorities, (e.g. priests, college degree-givers, peer review journals, Nazi commanding officers overseeing scientific publications, billionaire-owned Facebook's paid fact-checkers, Wikipedia, etc.). An example is the published peer-reviewed paper, "Cooperative , Compact Algorithms for Randomized Algorithms", which is simply random gibberish.

In the short quote from Dr. Dyer in the OP, he explicitly encourages people to be "christ-like" and "buddha-like", to mimic Jesus and Buddha. As I interpret it, in no way does such advice mean the un-nuanced black or un-nuanced white of such a seemingly false dichotomy. Dyer names two alleged giants on whose shoulders he encourages one to stand.

Between kneeling versus standing entirely alone, there is voluntarily standing on the shoulders of giants.

For all my posts about spiritual freedom on these forums, I am married, which involves much more physical contact and social entanglement than merely standing on someone's shoulders. Freedom does not mean non-association or non-cooperation, but a lack of freedom does make free association and voluntarily cooperation impossible. Kneeling like a slave at the alter of blind faith precludes standing on the shoulders of giants. Standing up as a defiantly free person is the first step towards standing on the shoulders of giants.

Without slavery, blind obedience, nor blind faith, there is then the opportunity for Proudhon's order, as represented by the wisdom of the statement, liberty and nonviolence are the mother, not the daughter, of order.

If you and I each peacefully seek truth individually, we may still meet on the mountaintop of truth as free equals. Our paths can be different and yet converge. Advice and roadmaps can be freely shared (or not) and freely taken (or not) as one sees fit. Free people can stand on each other's shoulders.

[Sculptor1]

TRUTH BECOMES A LIE WHEN ORGANIZED:

Pseudo-profound horse excrement; self evidently rubbish.

I wonder if science thinks that the organised truths of Kepler, Newton and Copurnicus when organised into the modern heliocentric system is a lie?

That would be true, but there is one distinction. There's a huge difference between the truths we create for ourselves and those we discover. The latter has nothing to do with the former meaning not customized to our preferences.

So you are implying that if a "truth" is created it will always fail the organisation test. That would make it a falsehood - and only revealed as such after examination. That leaves the above pseudo-pfofound excrement, such that - self evident rubbish.

[Sculptor1]

My beliefs are that the truth is a truth until you organize it, and then it becomes a lie. I don't think that Jesus was teaching Christianity, Jesus was teaching kindness, love, concern, and peace. What I tell people is don't be Christian, be Christ-like. Don't be Buddhist, be Buddha-like. Religion is orthodoxy, rules and historical scriptures maintained by people over long periods of time. Generally, people are raised to obey the customs and practices of that religion without question. These are customs and expectations from outside the person and do not fit my definition of spiritual.

What do you think of Dr. Wayne Dyer's credos as quoted above? Do you agree? If not, why not?

I do not think this is really about "truth" in any sense. Most of what we can glean from the bible is based on a series of practical lies. It is doubtful whether the "teachings" of the NT amount to kindness, love, concern, and peace.

In the quoted text, Dr. Dyer did not say that the New Testament of the Christian Bible taught kindness, love, concern, and peace. He said that Jesus taught kindness, love, concern, and peace.

But the sum of what Jesus was supposed to have taught does not amount to kindness, love, concern, and peace.
It amounts to a threat. If you do not act in the way I says you will be damned. Jesus also says you need to jettison family and follow me, or else. Be subservient to me, or else. Be celibate, or else. Jesus says you are born ill and commands you to be well, or else.

[Steve3007]

I've probably said this before, but I think this philosophy is essentially a form of Libertarianism, or is very similar to it.

[Sculptor1]

I've probably said this before, but I think this philosophy is essentially a form of Libertarianism, or is very similar to it.

Really? How so?

[Steve3007]

Really? How so?

In the sense that it puts a lot of emphasis on individual freedom and self-responsibility and eschews government and other forms of authority. (I'm talking here about Scott's philosophy as described in the OP and in some other topics.).

[Sculptor1]

Really? How so?

In the sense that it puts a lot of emphasis on individual freedom and self-responsibility and eschews government and other forms of authority. (I'm talking here about Scott's philosophy as described in the OP and in some other topics.).

Key public libertarian figures, though are by no means anti-religious.
This guy has a long list:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... -religious.
ANd here is laughably suggests that Martin Luther has been described as libertarian.. Quite laughably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism

It seems libertarianism is not all it is cracked up to be.