Culdian Forums

The Disease of Materialism

Started by Len, November 16, 2014, 01:08:57 AM


Regarding this Alexis de Tocqueville fellow, I think the statement,

"The doctrine of metempsychosis is assuredly not more rational than that of materialism; nevertheless, if it were absolutely necessary that a democracy should choose one of the two, I should not hesitate to decide that the community would run less risk of being brutalized by believing that the soul of man will pass into the carcass of a hog than by believing that the soul of man is nothing at all."

May be a little dramatic. I guess i would stick to my guns and say that all human endeavors are relatively self-serving. Just because your sat on a rock in Tibet meditating it doesn't necessarily make you higher or more spiritual than someone toiling in the fields of Babylon or some poor schmuck sat in front of the television. I have found personally the influence of most religion is toward family. So i guess i will play the prophetic role of one of the guys who is going to come along and tell you the material world is not so different from the immaterial one. We are at the end of the day only human? In fact i would see the spirit realm as being eternally dark and shadowy and the true light is in our world, in the loving of our children and such the like.  I guess i would ultimately agree with Alexis de Tocqueville that one has a yearning for the other. I would also agree with him that reincarnation is, not for me, that favorable a POV. Seems to me that life is born anew each moment let alone with each birth or death. The idea of some stodgy old spirit hanging around doesn't appeal to me especially if it's seeking to posses the things around me!

"Most religions are only general, simple, and practical means of teaching men the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. That is the greatest benefit which a democratic people derives from its belief, and hence belief is more necessary to such a people than to all others. When, therefore, any religion has struck its roots deep into a democracy, beware that you do not disturb it; but rather watch it carefully, as the most precious bequest of aristocratic ages. Do not seek to supersede the old religious opinions of men by new ones, lest in the passage from one faith to another, the soul being left for a while stripped of all belief, the love of physical gratifications should grow upon it and fill it wholly."

I would have to say Alexis de Tocqueville has an intriguing point here. I think the danger we have today is not of 'disturbing' the roots of religion but ripping them out all together! Particularly in Britain where we have a large part of the population who are deeply religious and another part that is deeply secular. I would point out that we in Britain are now adopting a 'free school' approach to education which may serve only to deepen this divide. But to have such a rapid influx of new ideas and opinions is unparalleled, as i suppose it is with technology. So i would say that one explanation for materialism is the idea that we are approaching the steep end of an exponential roller coaster and people are out to get what they can because intrinsically they know there isn't that much left! I would say that the powers that be clearly exacerbate the situation by a refusal to do what is obviously necessary. But you only have to look at history to see an endless trail of greed and perhaps missed opportunities. So the human race is going to be selfish whether it is under a feudal, religious, democratic governance because that is in our nature as much as the need for spirituality is. I think ultimately we have to have faith in nature to balance our system and if we could feed the hungry mouths and home the homeless that would put people at ease. I guess it is clear that there is a seemingly eternal conflict at the heart of human affairs. I have always seen it this way, there is destruction in the heavens and earth so wouldn't we be arrogant to think there would be no destruction in human affairs and in our hearts, even our souls? This is where religion comes in and tells you, you will have more children than there are grains of sand on the beach and that you will forever live in a land of milk and honey.

I am not however standing here to defend some playboy in his daddies Ferrari. I do feel slightly cautious about criticizing the man who works 10 hours a day and never sees his family so wants to take them on a nice holiday or buy them some presents even though as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But to frog march him into a church where the preacher speaks Latin and forbids him his nature is not, in my humble opinion, going to solve anything. Neither by the way is taking him to some sacred grove and stripping his clothes off! I would propose that if there is an immortal soul, it will make contact with you, not you with it.

But for a guy who was around in the 1800s he was pretty on the ball! Especially today with the television and the automobile. With regards to modern science, i think we have defiantly lost the spark of true ingenuity but who is to say that we haven't been spoiled by someone like Einstein or Newton? From whence do such great men come? But i would regard all great thinkers like that as having a spark at least, even if not a divine one.

Quote from: Christopher

I believe white light was first calculated and portrayed on the Milton Spectrum. We associate white light with divinity, as with the transfiguration of Jesus Christ. This supernatural experience of white light during the time of Jesus and from him, along with recent CERN white light findings, is the manifestation of God because white light involves being at the core of divinity and the core of atoms in the natural world. So, the manifest white light discovered with Jesus, and the scientific record under the Milton Spectrum can jointly be called the “God particle.” There are scientists that would challenge this and say that there is no link between white light and the divine, but it is now apart of our physical world, nature, and can grip human senses and faculties. A union with the spiritual and material worlds.

Regarding the difference between and union of the spiritual and material worlds; I would have to say first of all that we don't fully understand the spiritual world, by its nature or through our ignorance of it. Nor do we totally understand the material world. I find it hard to ignore the fact that the difference between them exists in our minds. So for us to cavalierly say this is spirit and that is material may be an over estimation of our ability. I would say this comes back to the problem of nothingness for the mathematician or the spiritualist. As i have said the equation 0=0 is pretty dull. Both the spiritual and the material world require humanity to "grow upon it and fill it wholly." as Alexis de Tocqueville warns us against rather provocatively regarding physical gratification. So as with consciousness, it should not be a problem for us to approximate how it came to be or what it is, as we ourselves have gone through the process of becoming conscious. There is no better author regarding that topic than yourself. Nor should it be hard for us to comprehend of a union between the spiritual and the material because we ourselves are that union.

I think it worth remembering the people who work at the CERN collider looking at all the complicated sets of equations and data are just one part in a larger chain that we as individuals have very little power over. I think defiantly if you want to see Gods white light look at the CERN collider, look at its construction, its purpose, the materials. That machine has the potential to change life on this planet drastically. The electromagnets themselves are worth considerably more than there weight in gold! So, here is to the union of the spiritual and material, I think it has been said that we see this union best in the relation between our theories and reality; the loftiness of our dreams and our humble realities.


"Most religions are only general, simple, and practical means of teaching men the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. That is the greatest benefit which a democratic people derives from its belief, and hence belief is more necessary to such a people than to all others." Alexis de Tocqueville

I think this is so key. Belief is not i would say necessary. In some way you could say air (as in oxygen) is necessary but i wouldn't feel it to be an appropriate word, the word i would use would be essential. Belief is essential in a modern democratic people. They have to believe as the Egyptians did that if they don't drudge off to work that the sun will not rise in the morning as the Egyptians (and so many other peoples) did when they were building the temples and monuments. It is a common belief we all hold and essential true i guess. And furthering the point, such is a modern economics that it is totally self serving, at least the Egyptians did something other than (as well as) make money.


whoah... :o,, so many topics,, i dont know how they relate to materialism,, if that's what this is all about..., can i share something in this? probably not intellectual by your standards but i dont care,... materialism, dont know what exactly it means,, but maybe this thing is what comes after we have developed so many things, or so many "material/s". that we lose sight of the basics... lets put this theory in a different time and environment... will it stand? lets say we have the intellect of today, but we live in the stone age? sure we would think of how to better our living,, then we need resources,, so we would need tools, and so on, so we have the materials to make things easy,,, then some people would naturally think that with all of our "material" we could have, want , build, anything that we hope for,, but then, when all this materials, resources, are gone and we end up back in the stone age, will it still count,,,.. all our advancement in technology? in "material"? there's nothing wrong in wanting, what comes after the wanting is the choice that we all have to make.... ,,  :P