Philosophy Discussion Forums

This statement beautifully expresses a sense of interconnectedness and grief for global suffering after a personal loss. The exploration of the "science of coexistence" through various scientific disciplines adds depth. Spiritual traditions generally promote coexistence, despite doctrinal differences, emphasizing unity, compassion, and interconnectedness.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 10:01 am it's not clear that co-existence is self-evidently a good-in-itself that we should all strive for.

I agree. I think that even peace can be actually just a different and clever weapon to impose ourselves more efficiently.

I don’t think that oriental religions and spiritualities have anything specially better about coexistence and peace: they have, like all religions and spiritualities, their specific ideas about how the world works or should work. These systems of ideas, that are just metaphysics, prepare conflicts with those who disagree.

We might suspect that competition, war, violence, injustice, is at the very roots of this world and of nature. We can suspect that even atoms and molecules exist thanks to competition. An atom that has charcteristics that favour its existence will exist with more probabilities than another one that is structured in a way that hinders its existence. Even our ideas are in competition with each other inside our brain, and their survival can be determined by the same mechanisms. This way, it goes without saying, even I, while writing this post, can be suspected of using it to try to impose myself. This way we can end up with the conclusion that evil, competition, violence, are inescapable, whatever we do, even when we, illusorily, think that we are striving for peace and coexistence. After all, we know a lot of revolutions, in the world history, that ended up just into a new different oppression. This is the idea contained in Orwell’s Animal Farm.

But all of this can be criticized as being, in turn, metaphysics as well. We can’t get evidence that it is completely true or completely false.
This means that, from a metaphysical point of view, we have no hope. As soon as we use the verb “to be” we are preparing war, because we are building metaphysics and metaphysics don’t like disagreement.

In this context, I think that the best we can do is to proceed with a philosophy of humility, a methodology of attempts. We can try to build peace and coexistence just because we cannot have any evidence that war and competition are really the fundamental radical rule of how this world works. But, at the same time, we cannot trust blindly our ideas of peace and coexistence. That’s why I think we can only try, make attempts, do tests, do experiments, practice criticism and self-criticism, endlessly. We can never reach any perfect peace, because, the day this will happen, we will have built just a new dictatorship based on a new metaphysics.
We cannot even say that this world, with the competition it forces into us, is the best world we can have. Humanly, we perceive that we can do improvements, we can criticize nature, while we try to listen to it.

At this point, once this humble way of thinking becomes a way of life, a style, something that shapes deeply not only our thoughts, but also our heart, our behaviour, our daily life, then it is not just philosophy but a real, authentic, deep spirituality.

A religion that is composed entirely of meaningless and harmless rituals would help to engender coexistence.
Comments sought as to candidates for meaningless rituals,e.g.

Music, especially synthetic music.

Natural dance.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 10:01 am

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 7:29 am It may mean a lack of integration, which was often the goal of all political blocs in the past, but the goal is coexistence, not assimilation.

That seems to me a very relevant insight.

Assimilation is becoming "one of us", a full member of some type of community. Co-existence is something like voluntary sharing of a community space with others who are not full members of that community.

Assimilation in the sense I used it above is the absorption and integration of people, ideas, or culture into a wider society or culture, with a loss of their former identity.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 10:01 am Noting as an aside that assimilation covers not only the welcomed outsiders changing to become like existing members of the community. But may also involve the community redefining itself so as to include those formerly excluded.

So for example, if you live in a village which is a Christian community, and a house in the village is bought by Muslims, you might observe in your neighbours a range of reactions:
A) hostility - responding to a sense of being deliberately attacked or invaded
B) rejection - not wishing them ill but wishing them gone, as peacefully as possible
C) co-existence or tolerance - being content that they stay alongside - they do their thing and we do ours
D) desire for conversion - they're welcome, but have to convert, to change to fit in
E) acceptance without condition - redefining the idea of what the community is so as to include. Becoming a community which self-identifies as something broader and shallower (perhaps "godly" - making their religion and our religion part of some shared group characteristic).

The odd thing with this list is that it assumes the exclusivity of the past. In the past, Jews lived with Moslems and Christians, and it was more the Christians who had difficulty living with others. I worked with Moslems and a Jew in a care setting, and none of them had problems celebrating Christmas with the patients. In another house, I also had Hindus, who also had no problems playing along. So, the question is what is the main factor that endangers coexistence? To me, it is the exclusivism of Christianity and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples during colonial expansion. Then there were the interventions by the Capitalist or Communist blocs, and generally power struggles. More recently, it has been the attempt to assimilate Moslem countries into a Western-style democratic society, or even, in some cases, ethnic cleansing. This kind of arrogance has failed to understand the resentment that such behaviour has caused. This list is obviously not exhaustive.

So A & B, as well as D & E, would be more of what has already failed, C is indeed the starting point and who knows what the future would bring – perhaps a completely different outcome.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 10:01 am Combine that with the idea that we humans tend to be part of several different groups, some overlapping, some subsets of others, with different levels of attachment and strength of community in each.

Then it's not clear that co-existence is self-evidently a good-in-itself that we should all strive for. Rather it's an appropriate response in some circumstances, that we should be able to deploy from our behavioural toolkit.

You are jumping the gun because you can’t imagine coexistence or that different groups already live together. The problem is the animosity towards each other, which we are trying to overcome. My experience in Germany is that churches that promote coexistence have cultural exchanges with Mosques, Synagogues and Temples, which are well received. The idea would be to spread this attitude amongst non-religious people as well.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 10:01 am But if you want this thread to be about how co-existence can be made to happen, given that it is a Good Thing that we all want, then I'll shut up and withdraw and let you get on with it. In the spirit of C) above...

After quietly pointing out that your premise is false....

Thank you for your permission!

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 4:56 pm The odd thing with this list is that it assumes the exclusivity of the past. In the past, Jews lived with Moslems and Christians, and it was more the Christians who had difficulty living with others. I worked with Moslems and a Jew in a care setting, and none of them had problems celebrating Christmas with the patients. In another house, I also had Hindus, who also had no problems playing along. So, the question is what is the main factor that endangers coexistence? To me, it is the exclusivism of Christianity...

Yes, that's the main difference between the Western, Abrahamic, religions, and their Eastern counterparts — exclusivity. And I agree it's the root of (religious) intolerance. "I am right, and so you must be wrong" is the Christian way, in which I was raised. One of the Sikh gurus actually taught that Sikhs should respect the (religious) views of others who do not share their faith.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 12th, 2023, 7:52 am Yes, that's the main difference between the Western, Abrahamic, religions, and their Eastern counterparts — exclusivity. And I agree it's the root of (religious) intolerance. "I am right, and so you must be wrong" is the Christian way, in which I was raised. One of the Sikh gurus actually taught that Sikhs should respect the (religious) views of others who do not share their faith.

We find that two factors stand out if we look at why that is. The first is a collectivistic outlook, which builds on the second, a non-dualist worldview. However, from an individualistic and dualistic perspective, a collectivistic outlook has many disadvantages. As many as, probably, as collectivists and non-dualists see in individualism.

In philosophy, non-dualism suggests no fundamental separation between opposites or dualities. It often emphasises the interconnectedness of all things and the idea that reality is ultimately unified. Dualism, on the other hand, posits a fundamental separation or duality between certain concepts, such as mind and body, good and evil, or spirit and matter.

Collectivism is a social and political philosophy that emphasises the importance of the collective or group over the individual. It often values cooperation, community, and shared responsibility. On the contrary, individualism prioritizes the rights and autonomy of the individual. It advocates for personal freedom, self-reliance, and individual rights.

Non-dualist Collectivism refers to a perspective that sees the interconnectedness of individuals within a collective or community, emphasising shared goals, cooperation, and a sense of unity without rigid distinctions between individuals. The advantages of this outlook are the emphasis on cooperation and mutual support, the potential for a strong sense of community and shared identity, and less likelihood of extreme individual disparities. The disadvantages are the possibility of suppressing individual rights and diversity, challenges in decision-making with a consensus-oriented approach, and the risk of conformity and lack of innovation.

Dualistic individualism implies an approach that sees a clear separation between individuals and emphasises individual rights, personal freedom, and autonomy. It could involve a more competitive or individual-centric view of society. Its advantages are its focus on individual freedom and personal autonomy, the potential for innovation and diversity of thought, and efficient decision-making with individual agencies. Its disadvantages lie in the risk of social inequality and disparities, the potential for a lack of social cohesion, and limited emphasis on collective well-being.

Exclusivity seems to be a distinguishing factor between collectivism and individualism, with individualism often emphasising personal autonomy and exclusivity. In this outlook, individuals are often encouraged to pursue their own goals and interests independently of the group. This can cause disruption and resentment because of growing poverty in the shadow of growing prosperity. All spiritual traditions speak out against this disparity. Where individuals are expected to strive to stand out and distinguish themselves, the “simple life” is frowned upon and seen as antagonistic by those who think that competition is the purpose of life.

Collectivism, by nature, tends to emphasise shared identity, cooperation, and group cohesion. The focus is on the well-being of the whole community or society. In collectivist cultures or societies, there may be less emphasis on exclusivity among individuals. Shared values, common goals, and communal interests often precede personal exclusivity. If this is grounded in a non-dual religion, the emphasis on sacred Unity has priority. We know, however, that many non-dualist countries have been accessed by the global economy, forcing countries to compete for world leadership in economic areas, thus undermining the religious aspect.

Belindi wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 3:56 pm A religion that is composed entirely of meaningless and harmless rituals would help to engender coexistence.
Comments sought as to candidates for meaningless rituals,e.g.

Music, especially synthetic music.

Natural dance.

There are actually some atheist churches such as the Sunday Assembly that meet for social connection, singing, sharing experiences, learning, and commitment to charitable activities. So they engage in rituals of a sort, find some sort of "meaning" and fulfil a lot of the functions of religion. They just don't do the god bit. This is harmless and, indeed, may actually do some good for the participants and to those who receive charity from the atheist church. I guess all this might help engender coexistence. What's not to like?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 2:46 pm We can suspect that even atoms and molecules exist thanks to competition. An atom that has charcteristics that favour its existence will exist with more probabilities than another one that is structured in a way that hinders its existence. Even our ideas are in competition with each other inside our brain, and their survival can be determined by the same mechanisms.

I think that we tend to interpret competition in a way that seems beneficial, forgetting that a one-sided perspective makes it grim and unmerciful. The generative power of apparent opposites is in their coming together as a Coincidentia Oppositorum, as Iain McGilchrist shows in his book:

“All things arise from opposing, but in some form nonetheless related, drives or forces. Energy is always characterised by the coming together of apparent opposites – apparent because this is how we have conceived things left hemisphere fashion: as in the positive and negative poles of an electric circuit, the north and south poles of the magnet, or, in a quite different sense, the merging of male and female gametes in the origin of new life. To the imaginative mind, such a coming together of ‘opposites’ is, as Niels Bohr (above) suggests, a sign that we are at last approaching a deeper level of truth ….”

When it comes to understanding the self, one can predict that each hemisphere will support a different version. The self as conceived by the left hemisphere, should be – and is – an entity that is relatively static, separate, fixed, yet fragmentary, a succession of moments, goal-orientated, with its needs at any moment perceived as essentially competitive (since others may similarly target the same resources), determinate, consciously wilful, circumscribed in the breadth and depth of what it sees, at ease with the familiar, certain and explicit, but less so with all that is fluid, ambiguous, and implicit, and unaware of the limitations of its own knowledge. The self as conceived by the right hemisphere should be – and is – more akin to a process than a thing, essentially fluid and less determinate, nonetheless forming a unique whole over time, aware that it is fundamentally inseparable from all else that exists, open to others and to experience, more concerned with co-operation than competition, less consciously wilful, more engaged in what one might call ‘active passivity’ (an open attendant disposition, in which one is ready to respond to what emerges), seeing the greater picture in space and time, and aware of the extent of its ignorance.”
McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 1242 & p. 1333). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

It is only when the brain works together that the full potential of human cognition is achieved. As McGilchrist shows, we tend towards a left-hemispheric dominance and competition, unaware of the limitations of our own knowledge. We need the right hemisphere to see the greater picture.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 3:01 am What's not to like?

I have attended some groups like these, both in person and by sharing discussions on the internet. The problem with these activities is that they have two alternatives only.
One alternative is doing very well at not making any reference to ideas that can become like a new religion, a new truth, new belief, new metaphysics. But in this case what they do and say becomes something extremely void of meaning, very sterile, tasteless, neutral, colourless, lifeless, so that, at the end, you don't see a reason why you should go to those activities.
The second alternative is when they make efforts to be somewhat meaningful, connected to existence, having clear purposes and characteristics. The problem in this case is that whatever they say and do becomes instantly exposed to objections, criticism, contradictions.
I think that a third alternative to avoid these problems is to build first a philosophy that is inclusive, open to criticism and self criticism, made not of metaphysics, but of subjectivity and humanity, open to rationality, science, but also to art and irrationality. A philosophy where statements are expressed not because they have got any objective truth, but because they are felt as temporary good ways to express subjective feelings and to explore various perspectives. Once this philosophy is made clear, defined, it can become a spirituality even with rituals and can be adopted as a personal criterion for choices, behaviour, orientation, style and way of life. I think that, from inside such a philosophy, you can even adopt a criterion of "visiting" other religions and spiritualities and attend their rituals, after having made clear that you even invoke their Gods not because you believe in those Gods, but because you what to express your high respect and appreciation for their beliefs and religions. If they do not accept this, that's fine, you have just shown that you are available to do such sharing. From your perspective, it can sound very strange this invoking a God you don't believe in. But this wouldn't be a big difficulty, because even believers can never claim that their inner fath is really perfect and total as it is supposed to be, even when they think it is.

Well said.

I am not a believer but when I go to weddings and funerals in churches of the various denominations I still get something out of the rituals and hymns and the homilies and the togetherness. I don't need to believe in the supernatural to get something out of attending a religious services. And those things, the music, the homilies etc can also be provided by a non-religious service. But I think it's the shared faith that really holds religions together. And that is a deficiency that is difficult for atheist churches to make up for.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 12th, 2023, 7:52 am Yes, that's the main difference between the Western, Abrahamic, religions, and their Eastern counterparts — exclusivity. And I agree it's the root of (religious) intolerance. "I am right, and so you must be wrong" is the Christian way, in which I was raised. One of the Sikh gurus actually taught that Sikhs should respect the (religious) views of others who do not share their faith.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 1:45 am We find that two factors stand out if we look at why that is. The first is a collectivistic outlook, which builds on the second, a non-dualist worldview. However, from an individualistic and dualistic perspective, a collectivistic outlook has many disadvantages. As many as, probably, as collectivists and non-dualists see in individualism.

In philosophy, non-dualism suggests no fundamental separation between opposites or dualities. It often emphasises the interconnectedness of all things and the idea that reality is ultimately unified. Dualism, on the other hand, posits a fundamental separation or duality between certain concepts, such as mind and body, good and evil, or spirit and matter.

Collectivism is a social and political philosophy that emphasises the importance of the collective or group over the individual. It often values cooperation, community, and shared responsibility. On the contrary, individualism prioritizes the rights and autonomy of the individual. It advocates for personal freedom, self-reliance, and individual rights.

If we separate collectivism and individualism, isn't that dualism? I offer this not as ridicule or criticism, but maybe as a sad irony?

I think the holistic 'truth' might be that the individual and the group are complements, and a Middle Path between the two might reap the greatest rewards?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 7:33 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 12th, 2023, 7:52 am Yes, that's the main difference between the Western, Abrahamic, religions, and their Eastern counterparts — exclusivity. And I agree it's the root of (religious) intolerance. "I am right, and so you must be wrong" is the Christian way, in which I was raised. One of the Sikh gurus actually taught that Sikhs should respect the (religious) views of others who do not share their faith.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 1:45 am We find that two factors stand out if we look at why that is. The first is a collectivistic outlook, which builds on the second, a non-dualist worldview. However, from an individualistic and dualistic perspective, a collectivistic outlook has many disadvantages. As many as, probably, as collectivists and non-dualists see in individualism.

In philosophy, non-dualism suggests no fundamental separation between opposites or dualities. It often emphasises the interconnectedness of all things and the idea that reality is ultimately unified. Dualism, on the other hand, posits a fundamental separation or duality between certain concepts, such as mind and body, good and evil, or spirit and matter.

Collectivism is a social and political philosophy that emphasises the importance of the collective or group over the individual. It often values cooperation, community, and shared responsibility. On the contrary, individualism prioritizes the rights and autonomy of the individual. It advocates for personal freedom, self-reliance, and individual rights.

If we separate collectivism and individualism, isn't that dualism? I offer this not as ridicule or criticism, but maybe as a sad irony?

I think the holistic 'truth' might be that the individual and the group are complements, and a Middle Path between the two might reap the greatest rewards?

They are just the ends of a spectrum, not two independent principles, such as mind and matter, man and nature, or good and evil.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 4:36 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 3:01 am What's not to like?

I have attended some groups like these, both in person and by sharing discussions on the internet. The problem with these activities is that they have two alternatives only.
One alternative is doing very well at not making any reference to ideas that can become like a new religion, a new truth, new belief, new metaphysics. But in this case what they do and say becomes something extremely void of meaning, very sterile, tasteless, neutral, colourless, lifeless, so that, at the end, you don't see a reason why you should go to those activities.
The second alternative is when they make efforts to be somewhat meaningful, connected to existence, having clear purposes and characteristics. The problem in this case is that whatever they say and do becomes instantly exposed to objections, criticism, contradictions.
I think that a third alternative to avoid these problems is to build first a philosophy that is inclusive, open to criticism and self criticism, made not of metaphysics, but of subjectivity and humanity, open to rationality, science, but also to art and irrationality. A philosophy where statements are expressed not because they have got any objective truth, but because they are felt as temporary good ways to express subjective feelings and to explore various perspectives. Once this philosophy is made clear, defined, it can become a spirituality even with rituals and can be adopted as a personal criterion for choices, behaviour, orientation, style and way of life. I think that, from inside such a philosophy, you can even adopt a criterion of "visiting" other religions and spiritualities and attend their rituals, after having made clear that you even invoke their Gods not because you believe in those Gods, but because you what to express your high respect and appreciation for their beliefs and religions. If they do not accept this, that's fine, you have just shown that you are available to do such sharing. From your perspective, it can sound very strange this invoking a God you don't believe in. But this wouldn't be a big difficulty, because even believers can never claim that their inner fath is really perfect and total as it is supposed to be, even when they think it is.

I have also been searching for a Religion of Coexistence for a long time,
and I finally found it here, on our philosophy discussion forum :

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19194

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2023, 12:28 am I have also been searching for a Religion of Coexistence for a long time,
and I finally found it here, on our philosophy discussion forum :

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19194

Can you clarify what you are specifically referring to? Do you mean that this forum itself works to you as a religion of coexistence? Or are you referring to Buddhism? Or what else?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2023, 1:08 am

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2023, 12:28 am I have also been searching for a Religion of Coexistence for a long time,
and I finally found it here, on our philosophy discussion forum :

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19194

Can you clarify what you are specifically referring to? Do you mean that this forum itself works to you as a religion of coexistence? Or are you referring to Buddhism? Or what else?

Can you clarify what you mean by : "clarify", please?

I know this for a fact that my definition of "clarify"
is very much different than your definition. Trust me.