Proclaiming atheism illegal is actually the most heretic position. Even more heretic than the attempts at rationally proving god's existence. Both claims assume that faith needs assistance by secular tools - science and legal coercion.
Trying to explain consciousness in terms of physical reality is putting the cart before the horse (begging the question). Consciousness is self-evident, it is the primary ‘reality’ of there being anything at all; the real mystery is the existence of the physical world, which can be explained only in terms of consciousness.
The world as we know it is literally what we ‘know’ as the world, what we meaningfully conceive of. Our conception/thought determines what we know as a tree, what a tree means, what a mountain means, and where the tree ends and the mountain begins. In about couple of weeks i expect to publish a book that goes much deeper into this topic.
But we also meaningfully conceive reality through new instruments, as well as through concepts that we, especially philosophers, invent, and thus the way we know and conceive the world changes. If that is the case, it's not the consciousness that is primary, but the material world.
Instrument and matter are objects of thought, meaningful ideas. It is their meaning, their concept itself that tells you that there is matter ‘independent of thought’. All you have is the thought of matter when you think of matter, tautologically.
Perhaps something that ought to have been reinforced a bit more in the conclusion here is that the Egyptian authorities are not actually concerned about “silent atheists” or what-have-you; they are concerned about critical thinkers, some of whom may be atheists, pointing out to the common citizen that the Emperor (Pharaoh?) is not, in fact, wearing any clothes.
They are worried that those who do not acknowledge the existence of some absolute & inexplicable power above them will not view their own authority as legitimate.
And in that sense, it is entirely logical for them to hold with this ostensibly anti-atheist stance, even if it is morally dubious and self-incriminating.
1/Zizek's difficulty with contemporary gender ideology is with the neo-liberalism which is at the material base of it. Added to this is the Lacanian non-identity and conflict between the symbolic and the somatic. In these two senses, transsexuality describes a *particular* form of the experience of gendered identity which is *universal* to all of us.
This hardly makes Zizek a "TERF" in the typical, twitter sphere sense of the word.
2/Zizek is concerned with the potential *misuses* of neurotheology not denying the validity of its results in their most basic form - experience registers as changes in the brain. Which is typically confined to the singular individual subject chiefly for reasons relating the convenience of the experimenters. Who are not necessarily those most capable of interpreting these results. Nor guarding against the misuse.
Materiality is more than what is commonly perceived, but this does not nudge it in the least to non-materialist objectivities. How so? The commonly unperceived materialities of the fourth state of matter—namely electromagnetic ionized plasma (the real prima materia) of the cosmos) found everywhere in the cosmos, has more than enough electrical energy and self-emergent properties to account for all fluxes and fields (including especially any neuronal activity at any scale). Electromagnetic neuronal activity scales so well that resemblances to mistakenly-construed theological imaginaries happen consistently, though erroneously.
I would not like trying to explain this to an Egyptian Theological Police Interrogator, though the explanation follows a solid abductive, if not experimental logic.
"Atheism, also, weakens one's identity and calls into questions established beliefs in history, canons, religious symbols, the Prophet's companions and followers, and ultimately leads to the collapse of the foundations of entire nations and of their sacred beliefs.”
This is precisely a reason to seriously consider atheism, not a reason to ban it.
This is just the old Eugenic model of judgement in a new reductive form by the typical civilized, authoritarian, theocratic-fascists who want everyone in their orbit of production/labor.
In this case, they'll just use Scientism to try and "measure" who the non-theist Jukes and Kallikaks are. Snuff out the heretics and outlaws against god.
Mad props to the North Sentinelese hunters/gatherers of "Satan's last stronghold on Earth" for pin cushioning up that missionary scum who came to convert them (and most likely bring civilizations agrarian diseases).
Oh, boy. What a trip reading this essay was! Zizek starts by criticizing the Egyptian government because they are making atheism illegal, even if the person doesn’t openly express disbelief in God—so far so good. He then asks the obvious question, How would they know what the person thinks? And then he says: “Modern science provides a solution: one could scan the suspect's brain with the devices used by neurotheologists trying to determine if there are traces of religious experiences in his neurons.” He doesn’t tell us that the Egyptian government will use “modern science” to determine who the godless culprits are; he simply assumes this to be the case. Jesus! A theocracy doesn’t need “modern science” to punish heretics. A theocracy can determine very easily that one is a heretic just by deciding so. Any innocuous word can serve as “proof.” Clearly, Zizek wants to offer a critique of what he calls “neurotheology”—the claim that one can determine religious experience by studying neuronal activity (by the way, I like his term—I think it’s a good one)—and he uses Egypt as a pretext.
I remember having read about these types of experiments years ago, and I understand and support Zizek’s skepticism, but I seem to remember that the point of the experiment was simply to see if there is “change in the brain” if one has a mystical state. Of course, there is a “change in the brain”. There is a “change in the brain” for every state, and this doesn’t prove nor disprove anything. It’s one of those stupid experiments that try to “prove” “spirituality” with science. The whole premise is idiotic. Then, Zizek continues his journey into experiments about body perception, and talks about how one can manipulate the perception of one’s body in space through other experiments—and from here he draws the amazing conclusion that the sense of “owning one’s body” shouldn’t be taken for granted, and that “the experience of being inside one’s body is not as self-evident as it might appear.” And here it’s where things are getting interesting. As everyone in the English-speaking world knows, this is the language used by Trans ideologues to prove—usually—that a man can “become” a woman, an ideology Zizek hasn’t been particularly supportive of. And so, one, naturally wonders, why is he using this language here, which would imply that he supports Trans ideology. Several reasons come to mind: 1. He uses the language provocatively, although what he says has nothing to do with said ideology; 2. He uses it because he knows it will give him more clicks; 3. He equates an experiment about the perception of our body in space with the perception of our bodies as males or females (this equivalency would be more than unfortunate; the experimenters could have chosen, for instance, to see how males versus females react to this type of experiment, which they didn’t. They were simply concerned with spatial perception and our sense of self.); 4. he is trying, in fact, to prove the opposite, ie, that the "experience" or "feeling" we may have about/inside our bodies, doesn't align with reality, ie, he is trying to prove that trans people don't have a case for their claim. My initial guess was that no. 1 is true here (maybe a bit of 2 also), but on second thought I am guessing that maybe 4 is true, in which case he needs to rephrase or clarify his points
Our remarkably intelligent philosopher is doing what philosophers are supposed to do—to think widely, deeply, and wildly. Is anyone better than comrade Slavoj?
1/Zizek's difficulty with contemporary gender ideology is with the neo-liberalism which is at the material base of it. Added to this is the Lacanian non-identity and conflict between the symbolic and the somatic. In these two senses, transsexuality describes a *particular* form of the experience of gendered identity which is *universal* to all of us.
This hardly makes Zizek a "TERF" in the typical, twitter sphere sense of the word.
2/Zizek is concerned with the potential *misuses* of neurotheology not denying the validity of its results in their most basic form - experience registers as changes in the brain. Which is typically confined to the singular individual subject chiefly for reasons relating the convenience of the experimenters. Who are not necessarily those most capable of interpreting these results. Nor guarding against the misuse.
Francisco Varela, mentioned above, had the following to say when interviewed by the Buddhist magazine "Inquiring Mind".
(Footnote: cf. Zizek's prefatory remarks above: "Below, a piece about religious experience and neurotheology. Life is shit, enjoy!")
"What a Relief! I Don’t Exist: Buddhism and the Brain (An Interview with Francisco Varela)"
"Well, one possible reaction is to say, Oh, my God, I don’t exist. But from a dharmic perspective you might say, What a relief! I don’t have to hold onto the illusion of self. One of the things you realize in meditation practice is that once you let go of the belief in self, there are no terrible consequences. You do not cease to function or even thrive. In fact, there is a kind of a peaceful presence untouched by any of the ideas you have about it. The problem does not exist once you can become at ease with the actual experience of no-self. If you realize the end results of giving up on the illusion of a solid self, then it is not as much a problem as it is a solution."
I'll just quickly mention another elegant solution whilst also noting that "solutions" to problems posed in a particular way are not necessarily the Truth. Nor a concomitant modus vivendi shaped by the moral Good.
Spinoza's Pantheism is compatible with Theism; Atheism, which is how Spinoza's philosophy was regarded at the time of Kant and Hegel; Neurotheology.
I don't understand why people care so much about atheism. If you're an atheist, then you know Christianity was designed by humans. If you don't like it, just change the parts you don't like and make up a narrative that fits. Why become an atheist? King Henry the 8th (the absolute unit) understood this. Can't divorce you say? I'll eat your religion and shit out a new one for the peasants to worship. Bow before your king, BOW, YOU SHITS!
Proclaiming atheism illegal is actually the most heretic position. Even more heretic than the attempts at rationally proving god's existence. Both claims assume that faith needs assistance by secular tools - science and legal coercion.
One of the above links appears to be broken. Or the article in question has moved to a different address..
From the Karolinska Institutet
"Brain scan reveals out-of-body illusion"
https://news.ki.se/brain-scan-reveals-out-of-body-illusion
Trying to explain consciousness in terms of physical reality is putting the cart before the horse (begging the question). Consciousness is self-evident, it is the primary ‘reality’ of there being anything at all; the real mystery is the existence of the physical world, which can be explained only in terms of consciousness.
How come it is self-evident and, more so, how come that it is the primary reality?
The world as we know it is literally what we ‘know’ as the world, what we meaningfully conceive of. Our conception/thought determines what we know as a tree, what a tree means, what a mountain means, and where the tree ends and the mountain begins. In about couple of weeks i expect to publish a book that goes much deeper into this topic.
But we also meaningfully conceive reality through new instruments, as well as through concepts that we, especially philosophers, invent, and thus the way we know and conceive the world changes. If that is the case, it's not the consciousness that is primary, but the material world.
Instrument and matter are objects of thought, meaningful ideas. It is their meaning, their concept itself that tells you that there is matter ‘independent of thought’. All you have is the thought of matter when you think of matter, tautologically.
Perhaps something that ought to have been reinforced a bit more in the conclusion here is that the Egyptian authorities are not actually concerned about “silent atheists” or what-have-you; they are concerned about critical thinkers, some of whom may be atheists, pointing out to the common citizen that the Emperor (Pharaoh?) is not, in fact, wearing any clothes.
They are worried that those who do not acknowledge the existence of some absolute & inexplicable power above them will not view their own authority as legitimate.
And in that sense, it is entirely logical for them to hold with this ostensibly anti-atheist stance, even if it is morally dubious and self-incriminating.
So they want to stop the Egyptian version of this menace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0hwNaIpPSo
@Alta Ilfland,
1/Zizek's difficulty with contemporary gender ideology is with the neo-liberalism which is at the material base of it. Added to this is the Lacanian non-identity and conflict between the symbolic and the somatic. In these two senses, transsexuality describes a *particular* form of the experience of gendered identity which is *universal* to all of us.
This hardly makes Zizek a "TERF" in the typical, twitter sphere sense of the word.
2/Zizek is concerned with the potential *misuses* of neurotheology not denying the validity of its results in their most basic form - experience registers as changes in the brain. Which is typically confined to the singular individual subject chiefly for reasons relating the convenience of the experimenters. Who are not necessarily those most capable of interpreting these results. Nor guarding against the misuse.
https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-great-awakening-and-its-dangers/
Materiality is more than what is commonly perceived, but this does not nudge it in the least to non-materialist objectivities. How so? The commonly unperceived materialities of the fourth state of matter—namely electromagnetic ionized plasma (the real prima materia) of the cosmos) found everywhere in the cosmos, has more than enough electrical energy and self-emergent properties to account for all fluxes and fields (including especially any neuronal activity at any scale). Electromagnetic neuronal activity scales so well that resemblances to mistakenly-construed theological imaginaries happen consistently, though erroneously.
I would not like trying to explain this to an Egyptian Theological Police Interrogator, though the explanation follows a solid abductive, if not experimental logic.
"Atheism, also, weakens one's identity and calls into questions established beliefs in history, canons, religious symbols, the Prophet's companions and followers, and ultimately leads to the collapse of the foundations of entire nations and of their sacred beliefs.”
This is precisely a reason to seriously consider atheism, not a reason to ban it.
This is just the old Eugenic model of judgement in a new reductive form by the typical civilized, authoritarian, theocratic-fascists who want everyone in their orbit of production/labor.
In this case, they'll just use Scientism to try and "measure" who the non-theist Jukes and Kallikaks are. Snuff out the heretics and outlaws against god.
Mad props to the North Sentinelese hunters/gatherers of "Satan's last stronghold on Earth" for pin cushioning up that missionary scum who came to convert them (and most likely bring civilizations agrarian diseases).
That's real resistance to real enemies.
'there is no God, but with technology we may enjoy Him nonetheless' seems to me like the Obsessive's religion par excellence.
Oh, boy. What a trip reading this essay was! Zizek starts by criticizing the Egyptian government because they are making atheism illegal, even if the person doesn’t openly express disbelief in God—so far so good. He then asks the obvious question, How would they know what the person thinks? And then he says: “Modern science provides a solution: one could scan the suspect's brain with the devices used by neurotheologists trying to determine if there are traces of religious experiences in his neurons.” He doesn’t tell us that the Egyptian government will use “modern science” to determine who the godless culprits are; he simply assumes this to be the case. Jesus! A theocracy doesn’t need “modern science” to punish heretics. A theocracy can determine very easily that one is a heretic just by deciding so. Any innocuous word can serve as “proof.” Clearly, Zizek wants to offer a critique of what he calls “neurotheology”—the claim that one can determine religious experience by studying neuronal activity (by the way, I like his term—I think it’s a good one)—and he uses Egypt as a pretext.
I remember having read about these types of experiments years ago, and I understand and support Zizek’s skepticism, but I seem to remember that the point of the experiment was simply to see if there is “change in the brain” if one has a mystical state. Of course, there is a “change in the brain”. There is a “change in the brain” for every state, and this doesn’t prove nor disprove anything. It’s one of those stupid experiments that try to “prove” “spirituality” with science. The whole premise is idiotic. Then, Zizek continues his journey into experiments about body perception, and talks about how one can manipulate the perception of one’s body in space through other experiments—and from here he draws the amazing conclusion that the sense of “owning one’s body” shouldn’t be taken for granted, and that “the experience of being inside one’s body is not as self-evident as it might appear.” And here it’s where things are getting interesting. As everyone in the English-speaking world knows, this is the language used by Trans ideologues to prove—usually—that a man can “become” a woman, an ideology Zizek hasn’t been particularly supportive of. And so, one, naturally wonders, why is he using this language here, which would imply that he supports Trans ideology. Several reasons come to mind: 1. He uses the language provocatively, although what he says has nothing to do with said ideology; 2. He uses it because he knows it will give him more clicks; 3. He equates an experiment about the perception of our body in space with the perception of our bodies as males or females (this equivalency would be more than unfortunate; the experimenters could have chosen, for instance, to see how males versus females react to this type of experiment, which they didn’t. They were simply concerned with spatial perception and our sense of self.); 4. he is trying, in fact, to prove the opposite, ie, that the "experience" or "feeling" we may have about/inside our bodies, doesn't align with reality, ie, he is trying to prove that trans people don't have a case for their claim. My initial guess was that no. 1 is true here (maybe a bit of 2 also), but on second thought I am guessing that maybe 4 is true, in which case he needs to rephrase or clarify his points
Our remarkably intelligent philosopher is doing what philosophers are supposed to do—to think widely, deeply, and wildly. Is anyone better than comrade Slavoj?
Ask Comrade Stalin. He should know. After all, it takes a comrade to know a comrade. A philosopher is no comrade.
Dunno why I thought no one will bring Stalin here.
“… the experience of being inside one’s body is not as self-evident as it might appear.”
Self-evident to whom?
I think I’ll stick with Heidegger.
1/Zizek's difficulty with contemporary gender ideology is with the neo-liberalism which is at the material base of it. Added to this is the Lacanian non-identity and conflict between the symbolic and the somatic. In these two senses, transsexuality describes a *particular* form of the experience of gendered identity which is *universal* to all of us.
This hardly makes Zizek a "TERF" in the typical, twitter sphere sense of the word.
2/Zizek is concerned with the potential *misuses* of neurotheology not denying the validity of its results in their most basic form - experience registers as changes in the brain. Which is typically confined to the singular individual subject chiefly for reasons relating the convenience of the experimenters. Who are not necessarily those most capable of interpreting these results. Nor guarding against the misuse.
https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-great-awakening-and-its-dangers/
This is the scariest shit I read this year
Francisco Varela, mentioned above, had the following to say when interviewed by the Buddhist magazine "Inquiring Mind".
(Footnote: cf. Zizek's prefatory remarks above: "Below, a piece about religious experience and neurotheology. Life is shit, enjoy!")
"What a Relief! I Don’t Exist: Buddhism and the Brain (An Interview with Francisco Varela)"
"Well, one possible reaction is to say, Oh, my God, I don’t exist. But from a dharmic perspective you might say, What a relief! I don’t have to hold onto the illusion of self. One of the things you realize in meditation practice is that once you let go of the belief in self, there are no terrible consequences. You do not cease to function or even thrive. In fact, there is a kind of a peaceful presence untouched by any of the ideas you have about it. The problem does not exist once you can become at ease with the actual experience of no-self. If you realize the end results of giving up on the illusion of a solid self, then it is not as much a problem as it is a solution."
https://inquiringmind.com/article/1601_7_varela/
I'll just quickly mention another elegant solution whilst also noting that "solutions" to problems posed in a particular way are not necessarily the Truth. Nor a concomitant modus vivendi shaped by the moral Good.
Spinoza's Pantheism is compatible with Theism; Atheism, which is how Spinoza's philosophy was regarded at the time of Kant and Hegel; Neurotheology.
I don't understand why people care so much about atheism. If you're an atheist, then you know Christianity was designed by humans. If you don't like it, just change the parts you don't like and make up a narrative that fits. Why become an atheist? King Henry the 8th (the absolute unit) understood this. Can't divorce you say? I'll eat your religion and shit out a new one for the peasants to worship. Bow before your king, BOW, YOU SHITS!