Zeyd of the Envoy crew asks:
"'I gather that religions, customs, even laws vary from group to group, and each develops as it chooses, or splits off to start something new. Doesn't that lead to conflict?'" (p. 454)
Why should it?
Zeyd's guide, Mundival, replies:
"'All are Seladorian... Different deity or none, different usage, yes, but all accept the oneness of life. That means, too, the oneness of humans.'" (pp. 454-455)
So Seladorianism, like Hinduism, is a "big tent," allowing very different philosophies and theologies to coexist peacefully.
"Zeyd knew of no faith that had ever brought universal harmony." (p. 455)
And no faith ever will. However, the end of economic conflicts will mean the end of ideological rationalizations of such conflicts. Beliefs that were merely fantastic reflections of social alienations will cease to exist. Spiritual inquiries and practices will continue but do not have to be divisive. "Oneness of humans" will mean difference without division and unity without uniformity.
"He wondered how meaningful those cultural uniquenesses were, and what measures were now and then necessary to maintain the global peace." (ibid.)
Why should uniquenesses not be meaningful? Why should any measures be necessary? Zeyd assumes the continuance of underlying causes of conflict which clearly no longer exist. There is no cause of conflict between right-handed and left-handed people or between blue-eyed and brown-eyed people - although there would be conflict if a system of discrimination had been constructed on some such irrational basis.
"Regardless of what it called itself, he didn't think Seladorianism was just a philosophy." (ibid.)
The implication being that "just a philosophy" would be merely optional whereas Seladorianism is covertly dogmatic or coercive? The evidence is that "Seladorianism" is merely a name allowing maximum cultural diversity within a common humanity. The "a religion or a philosophy?" question arises within Buddhism. The latter is a philosophy because it is an outcome of inquiry and analysis and a religion because it is a response to transcendence.
Varday says that there have been three thousand years of peace and Nansen reflects:
"'Thanks to...Selador. Who seems to have done better than the Christ they seem to have forgotten." (p. 459)
But it is not thanks to Selador. That is just the name of the most recent prophet and religious founder. The peace is thanks to the social use of nanotech and robotics. And, for some, that global peace will be a springboard to further discovery, not an end of discovery.
19 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I remain skeptical that nanotech and robotics will have that profound an effect on human beings and history. I never believed that merely material causes lies behind human quarrelsomeness and misery.
And Hinduism was never that peaceful and believes in things no orthodox Christian can accept, such as polytheism, belief in reincarnation, and the grotesque caste system.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There are reforming Hindus who are against polytheism, idolatry and castes.
Paul.
Nanotech plus appropriate social reorganization. Nanotech controlled by the present powers that be would be horrific.
Kaor, Paul!
We have discussed this before, those "reforming" Hindus have gotten NOWHERE in their efforts to rid Hinduism of polytheism/idolatry and the caste system. I consider Hinduism the last real pagan religion on Earth.
Exactly! Humans being what they are, nanotech WILL be abused by some. It's going to be the usual mix of folly and wisdom typical of human affairs once nanotech comes into common use. And that is why I don't put faith in "social reorganization." Only the limited state, in whatever form it exists, and free enterprise economics has truly WORKED.
Ad astra! Sean
“Economics” is merely a subclass of power. And power is inherently a zero-sum game. It’s also an end, not merely a means to some other end. Human beings are simply made that way by their evolutionary history.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I should copy this down into my pretentiously named CODEX ANDERSONIANUS notebook! You made the point I was trying to make far more clearly.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I suspect that what I call reforming Hindus merely practice their religion and set an example but do not actively campaign to change everyone else's practice. Change will come as part of greater social changes.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I remain unconvinced these reformist (or lax?) Hindus will ever amount to much. Any REAL "social changes" will probably have to come as a result of Christianity becoming the faith of most Indians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Far more likely, increased secularization and continuing pluralism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And as we have seen in the West, decadent secularism comes with many problems and caveats. So, I remain unconvinced.
Ad astra! Sean
Note that India started out run by secularists, and is now ruled by militant Hindu fundamentalists, ideological descendants of those who assassinated Ghandi.
One of my comrades who was a Preston City Councillor disliked attending events in the Hindu Temple there because he thought it was funded by the Hindu Nationalist Party in India.
When I visited the Temple, I found it very friendly.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: and that means I will not be surprised if we see more pogroms and massacres between Muslims and Hindus soon! It might be touched off by Hindus knocking down a mosque built on the site of a Hindu temple.
Paul: And those Hindus, or at least their leaders, also don't run the UK. If they were, then they might well not be so nice and friendly.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Communal violence in India: years ago, a road was being built to a Hindu temple but the excavations for the road turned up a cross. Christians said this proves there was a church there in the past so the road should be diverted and a new church built on the site of the old one.
Gandhian solution: build the road to the temple as planned; build a church beside the road; the church offers hospitality to Hindu pilgrims.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I would have argued a bit with those Christians, tho! Simply finding a cross at that spot does not necessarily prove a church had once been there. I can think of any number of reasons how or why a cross was left there. Unless there was archaeological evidence at or near that spot showing a church had formerly been there.
I like your reasonable compromise. Show hospitality? Of course! Open up coffee shops, tea houses, and restaurants to serve the needs of travelers and pilgrims.
Problem is, humans are so OFTEN totally unreasonable!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: that's because reason is a tool, a means, not an end.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Something too many of our dreamy idealists keep missing or ignoring!
Ad astra! Sean
Reason never provides any reason to -do- anything in particular. Desire rises from instinct; reason can give you the means to get what you want, but not what to want.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I have to agree. Reason and logical thought are only means and instrumentalities.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment