As an individual, I believe in moral duty, which to me means pursuing justice and opposing injustice. If you ask me why, I'd reply that if I didn't feel I was fulfilling that moral duty, I'd feel a tremendous loss of self-esteem.
What a wonder you are, Samuel. You are like my sister in some ways. (Tested IQ of 162). You are so smart I must concentrate with furrowed brows to begin to understand the complexity of thought and I still am not able to entirely understand. (All that intellect and you are an athlete and a musician on top of it.).
The only thing of Franks’s I’ve read is “Mans Search for Meaning.” But I think you know from previous conversations that I believe to the bottom of my soul that I am nothing more or less than what I make of myself.
One of my most favorite movie scenes is from Dr Zagavo (sp?). They are in a cattle car traveling to his estate in Siberia. There is a man in the car with them who is being sent to Siberia and prison by the Reds. He is chained to a pole. At one point he rattles his chain on the bar screaming “I am a free man.” He is my hero. The man I expire to be. And you help move me there
Where does collective faith go? There could be a new religion I think, but it would have to be a really decentralized affair (like Shinto). For example, check out this quote from a physicist:
"The attitude of the physicist must therefore be one of pure empiricism. He recognises no a priori principles which determine or limit the possibilities of new experience. Experience is determined only by experience. This practically means that we must give up the demand that all nature be embraced in any formula, either simple or complicated. It may perhaps turn out eventually that as a matter of fact nature can be embraced in a formula, but we must so organise our thinking as not to demand it as a necessity."
That's a statement that is both scientific and spiritual, embracing the infinite nature of experience. Spirituality is also about truth after all: a spirituality that does not run afoul of science is not inconceivable.
I like this thread of thought and want to keep pulling on it. A lot of what I've learned about metamodernism--specifically its more spiritual components--seems to provide some hope for this ole bag o' bones when the going gets tough. Brendan Graham Dempsey writes a lot about it. I used to play in a funk band with him in college. He's a wise soul.
It seems to me that instead of an organized religion, per se, there are philosophical principles -- pursue love & wonder, as my admitted plagiarism of Baldwin goes -- that could provide a framework versus a prescription for how to pursue a collective form of faith that acknowledges the underlying principles versus dogmatic tenets. It's a start?
I liked that essay, thanks for linking (though I feel it needs some editing to make it more KISS). I have a project that is pretty metamodern I feel, though perhaps not by the terms defined in that essay. It's called The Question. The Question is:
In that site, anyone who can answer the Question provides their answer. I see it as metamodern because it is about very diverse perspectives, yet, the perspectives being shared posit themselves as absolute truths, since, after all, everyone should know them. What do you think? I bet you have a very interesting answer.
Oh this is super cool. Very metamodern, indeed, especially since it offers no prescription, just possibilities. I've submitted my modest answer, which is really just an answer Viktor Frankl taught me years ago.
Thank you.
Hi Samuel!
This was an excellent series. Thank you
As an individual, I believe in moral duty, which to me means pursuing justice and opposing injustice. If you ask me why, I'd reply that if I didn't feel I was fulfilling that moral duty, I'd feel a tremendous loss of self-esteem.
What a wonder you are, Samuel. You are like my sister in some ways. (Tested IQ of 162). You are so smart I must concentrate with furrowed brows to begin to understand the complexity of thought and I still am not able to entirely understand. (All that intellect and you are an athlete and a musician on top of it.).
The only thing of Franks’s I’ve read is “Mans Search for Meaning.” But I think you know from previous conversations that I believe to the bottom of my soul that I am nothing more or less than what I make of myself.
One of my most favorite movie scenes is from Dr Zagavo (sp?). They are in a cattle car traveling to his estate in Siberia. There is a man in the car with them who is being sent to Siberia and prison by the Reds. He is chained to a pole. At one point he rattles his chain on the bar screaming “I am a free man.” He is my hero. The man I expire to be. And you help move me there
Where does collective faith go? There could be a new religion I think, but it would have to be a really decentralized affair (like Shinto). For example, check out this quote from a physicist:
"The attitude of the physicist must therefore be one of pure empiricism. He recognises no a priori principles which determine or limit the possibilities of new experience. Experience is determined only by experience. This practically means that we must give up the demand that all nature be embraced in any formula, either simple or complicated. It may perhaps turn out eventually that as a matter of fact nature can be embraced in a formula, but we must so organise our thinking as not to demand it as a necessity."
That's a statement that is both scientific and spiritual, embracing the infinite nature of experience. Spirituality is also about truth after all: a spirituality that does not run afoul of science is not inconceivable.
I like this thread of thought and want to keep pulling on it. A lot of what I've learned about metamodernism--specifically its more spiritual components--seems to provide some hope for this ole bag o' bones when the going gets tough. Brendan Graham Dempsey writes a lot about it. I used to play in a funk band with him in college. He's a wise soul.
It seems to me that instead of an organized religion, per se, there are philosophical principles -- pursue love & wonder, as my admitted plagiarism of Baldwin goes -- that could provide a framework versus a prescription for how to pursue a collective form of faith that acknowledges the underlying principles versus dogmatic tenets. It's a start?
Here's an intro to Brendan's work:
https://brendangrahamdempsey.substack.com/p/what-is-metamodernism
I liked that essay, thanks for linking (though I feel it needs some editing to make it more KISS). I have a project that is pretty metamodern I feel, though perhaps not by the terms defined in that essay. It's called The Question. The Question is:
What do you wish that everybody knew?
https://thequestion.diy/
In that site, anyone who can answer the Question provides their answer. I see it as metamodern because it is about very diverse perspectives, yet, the perspectives being shared posit themselves as absolute truths, since, after all, everyone should know them. What do you think? I bet you have a very interesting answer.
Oh this is super cool. Very metamodern, indeed, especially since it offers no prescription, just possibilities. I've submitted my modest answer, which is really just an answer Viktor Frankl taught me years ago.