I don’t believe any ideas are harmful to “society” [1], but there are many that are “harmful” to the current paradigm of power.
Some that come to mind:
1) The illusion of authority. The idea that some people have the moral right to do violence to enforce arbitrary rules written on paper.
2) The root cause of suffering, which is a lack of true knowledge of self and the nature of reality.
3) The fiat money system, or the idea of money at all.
4) The inherent ability (and maybe desire) to do harm and commit violence to existing in every being.
5) The idea of self ownership, when it comes to choices such as what we consume, whether it be food, “drugs”, or media.
6) Anything deemed a “conspiracy theory”.
7) Objective morality and natural law.
I could go on. All of these stem from a lack of knowledge of the self, morality, and the nature of consciousness and morality.
Of course these can be discussed in small groups, but widespread discussion of these, by “public figures” or “the media” is all but completely lacking.
Edit: I forgot to add a "citation" to my post.
[1]: I always wonder what people mean when they say society. Do they mean the current structure and way of doing things? Do they mean all people?
How do you define a conspiracy theory? If you break about the words, it simply means a theory about a group of people working together towards a common goal.
People who do engage with some wilder ideas do in fact take some actions that are harmful. It’s not the ideas that are harmful, but the actions taken without more complete knowledge that is.
A conspiracy theory involves a secret group, and in the usual context it's trying to affect a lot of people.
> People who do engage with some wilder ideas do in fact take some actions that are harmful. It’s not the ideas that are harmful, but the actions taken without more complete knowledge that is.
If indirect consequences like that don't count then it's not "“harmful” to the current paradigm of power" either, so I thought we were including those.
The “harm” is caused when people realize it is not moral for people to use violence against each other in the name of authority, and as a consequence cease to follow the commands of authority figures. No real harm is caused when this illusion disappears, hence the quotes. The power structure will disappear, and be “harmed”, but no human being will be.
Of course people are not mature enough to self govern yet. There would be chaos if all people playing the roles of police, military, etc stopped. That’s the primal terror and darkness we need to face individually, to confront the part of self that can do violence, and learn to govern it internally, and be the ruler of the kingdom of self.
When people are ready, these institutions will simply cease to exist, and be as absurd and illusionary any other superstition.
> The “harm” is caused when people realize it is not moral for people to use violence against each other in the name of authority, and as a consequence cease to follow the commands of authority figures.
I don't see how half of your bullet points lead to that, but in particular here I don't see how conspiracy theories lead to that. Especially with the wording of "Anything deemed a “conspiracy theory”", which would mean all conspiracy theories do this plus or minus rounding error.
I consider all three (self, morality, consciousness) inherently subjective topics with no objective foundation on which we can build any kind of "knowledge" of them. So when someone comes around and casually says "oh, these people just don't know [self, morality, consciousness]", I feel that they don't really aknowledge the inherent subjectivity of it, but instead hold their opinion on it as absolute and objective truth to which others are supposed to strive.
Which makes me angry, for some reason. That kind of attitude just rubs me the wrong way.
So if I'm wrong (and I would like to be wrong in this case), and the described attitude is not the one you have, please explain what you mean by "knowledge of self, morality, and the nature of consciousness and morality" - I will gladly read your answer and have it change my mind.
Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I an pretty disheartened with the "state of the world", or perhaps people's attitude towards it, and didn't even look at HN for a while.
I totally agree that my attitude may be off putting. I have a lot of trouble listening to people that speak with such certainty. How could anyone possibly know? What gives them the right to say such things? But what if some people really do know something? Should they couch every phrase with "I believe" or "it seems" or other words weakening their message? I'm sick and tired of that as well.
I am not really sure what is genuinely objective anyway. We as humans seek certainty and build models of reality, like the law of gravity, or model of the atom, so we can take actions with some certainty that that our actions will have the desired effects. In some fields, like physics, when confined to certain well defined "envelopes", the predictive power of our models appear to be about as objective as we can get. So far, gravity seems pretty darn solid. Of course, the boundary conditions are wild, once you start moving relativistically, or look at a sub-atomic scale. Let's not even start with quantum physics.
The only thing I know "objectively" is that I am conscious. I can observe, and I am experiencing something that we call reality. I appear to have senses, a body, thoughts, emotions, etc. However, this is also the most subjective possible claim, as it comes from me, the subject.
Now if I take this a bit further, can anything ever really be objective, when viewed from the position of a subject? I don't know. I observe and take in information and I believe this information changes my neurology, or perhaps something beyond (quantum interactions to a "beyond"), and I can use this information and the mental models to live my life and make decisions. If a lot of people use the same mental model, and show that with high probability it holds true (within an envelope of parameters of course), then we can considered it objective, but again viewed through our individual subjective points of view.
I can also say, I don't know if you, or anyone else I've interacted with is "real" or conscious. How could I? I only experience life through my own lens.
Spiritual teachers and books and knowledge passed on through the ages claim things like "We are all one consciousness", and all beings are in fact one. Maybe. I can't prove it, and I have not experienced it, even through lots of spiritual work such as meditation, plant medicines, other "energetic" practices.
Where does that leave me (or us), and the desire for "objective truth"? The way I approach it is that we must be extremely rigorous with our thinking and aware of the limits of rational thought. We must know what assumptions we are making and then use logic to slowly eat away at the foundations until perhaps truth will become self evident, as self evident as the undeniable (to me) knowledge that I am conscious.
I claim that morality is objectively true, because I do not wish to be harmed. You can't argue with me and claim that this isn't true. It is just true, within the bounds of my own experience. If I take that truth, and project it outwards, and make the assumption that you, and any other human is conscious, and make the assumption that they do not wish to be harmed, then I claim that that is the basis for morality. Anything is "right" as long as it does not go against the will of any other conscious being that has the ability to set boundaries. This can only be known but looking inward, and asking what morality means to you. I certainly hope this is true for everyone. It would be a good place to start.
The three words I used "morality", "consciousness" and "self" really describe the same phenomenon or experience I have, and have observed unambiguously within myself. I know I am conscious. It may be an "illusion", but even so it is 100% real to me, more real than any peer reviewed study or external knowledge. Even if a million or billion people say that morality is "doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people", I know that if that harms me, the harm is real. I experience it is real, and the only thing that would convince me otherwise would be direct experience of "the interconnectedness of all being", and through this experience realizing that I am not in fact harmed, and some "greater good" is in fact a greater good. Hoping, praying, doing scientific studies, measuring "happiness" or coming up with "objective metrics" of "the greater good" will never replace that inner knowing.
I'd feel remiss if I didn't mention taxes. As Thomas Sowell said, “What exactly is your ‘fair share’ of what ‘someone else’ has worked for?” For me this again is an undeniable truth. It is immoral to take from someone else what they paid for with their attention and effort. Imagine two men (or women) living on an island. Both are peacefully living isolated lives, eating coconuts. One of them gets hurt, and is no longer able to climb the coconut tree to get food. If the injured one does not get more coconuts, he will die. Is it okay for him to steal from the other? If you say yes, then I'm not sure we'll get much further :)
What if there are three? Or a hundred? What if by stealing one coconut, he can save 100% children from dying? Is it okay for him to steal?
I'd say it's perfectly moral to go to the other guy and say "Hey, I need a coconut. If you give it to me, we'll save a hundred children." At this point, it's up to the man with the coconuts to make his own moral decision. I'd hope he'd save the children, but it's wrong for anyone else to make that decision.
Even if I am wrong with all of this, I feel "in my heart" that if all people connected with this knowing within themselves, we'd collectively experiencing a very different eternal and internal world.
The chains of external government would become unnecessary and fall away if everyone governed themselves. I don't know what this world looks like exactly. I don't know specifically how people would organize and cooperate to do things that cannot be done as an individual, but I do know that taking the first step to not initiate force against any other being would go a long way.
What about the roads?
What about the gangs of not enlightened people that wish to do violence?
What about the weak/sick/poor people that cannot or will not take care of themselves?
A bunch of morally healthy happy people with all their needs met now have the opportunity and perspective to chose to help build roads, or protect the weak from the violent, and take care of the sick. They will not be forced to do so, but do so out of a place of compassion, strength and love.
We can try to coerce, force, and beat the world into submission externally, but how can we hope to achieve peace externally if we don't find it within first?
I hope that if nothing else, this is interesting to read. I don't expect, or even wish to "change you", just share my experience and my dream. I very much do wish to see a peaceful world, where humans collaborate on great works of art, travel to the stars, into the quantum realm, experience the fullness of reality, and cease to suffer. If any of this resonates, it's because a part of you has these same visions, same thoughts and same "conscious" experience as I do. Or put another way, you speak enough of the same language that a part of you recognizes a part of, and we realize we're not all alone, separate and different, but do share something fundamental and good.
Words are limiting, and I've done my best to share. If you want to read more of my writing, check out https://iamthatiam.org, or reach out on Matrix (see my website).
Some that come to mind:
1) The illusion of authority. The idea that some people have the moral right to do violence to enforce arbitrary rules written on paper.
2) The root cause of suffering, which is a lack of true knowledge of self and the nature of reality.
3) The fiat money system, or the idea of money at all.
4) The inherent ability (and maybe desire) to do harm and commit violence to existing in every being.
5) The idea of self ownership, when it comes to choices such as what we consume, whether it be food, “drugs”, or media.
6) Anything deemed a “conspiracy theory”.
7) Objective morality and natural law.
I could go on. All of these stem from a lack of knowledge of the self, morality, and the nature of consciousness and morality.
Of course these can be discussed in small groups, but widespread discussion of these, by “public figures” or “the media” is all but completely lacking.
Edit: I forgot to add a "citation" to my post.
[1]: I always wonder what people mean when they say society. Do they mean the current structure and way of doing things? Do they mean all people?