Peter Klevius 'existencecentrism' explains why you can believe in ghosts but not in God - and not even think about a God other than the one imprisoned in your head.
Read Peter Klevius in-depth research on The Psychosocial Freud Timeline.
Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.
Atheism*, not racist/sexist and militant "monotheisms" (look at Syria, Israel, Palestine etc.), is the only road to human virtue and the full acceptance of basic (negative) individual and Universal Human Rights without "monotheist"** religions defining exceptions.
* The only relevant definition of Atheism ought to rest on its European 16th Century meaning as the opposite the "monotheistic" God. Atheism cleans you from religious prejudice and delivers a rock solid platform for how to be a decent human. Atheism is the only route to fully respect Human Rights, i.e. not believing in an impossible monotheistic God "above and beyond anything that exists in the world", which is, in fact, your own personal wishful twisting of language. Language is human made "building blocks" and can construe whatever meaningless nonsense. This distinguishes an irrational ("outside" language) belief in God from a rational (inside language) belief in God or other deities, ghosts etc. Pretending to talk "outside" one's existencecentrism is self delusion.
** The peculiar concept "monotheism" is an oxymoron because its truly "God-part" is declared inaccessible for the human mind and cannot therefore be shared among humans. This leaves every believer with his own belief construction lacking any "essence" of "God's" most important characteristics.
Existencecentrism is the observable and thinkable world, and nothing can therefore exist "outside" it - incl. any question or belief.
Atheist Peter Klevius explains why the belief in a "God"* is impossible - and why "monotheisms" are against Human Rights. And he has all of human history on his side**.
* Defined as "outside" human reach. Whereas the Jew (Moses) could talk to God but not see his face, the early Christians could only see God's humanized son, and Muhammad (a further development of Arianism) who got no direct or indirect contact with God but had to settle with an angel. In polytheistic belief systems, a god is "a spirit or being believed to have been created out of something already existing in the world.
**
Peter Klevius lives in a time when the world has got enough of
"monotheistic" evil - and when the much older, self-evident and
sophisticated Atheism is surpassing in R&D, meritocracy, fairness
etc., first shown by post-war Japan and now China.
Ghosts can be derived from faith - "God" cannot. Faith is limited by our existencecentrism (mind, if you prefer) which excludes a "creator"* as a principal object of faith. Whatever you have faith in is within your existencecentrism - meaning Peter Klevius can only write about the border of existencecentrism, but is excluded from meaningfully writing the sentence 'outside the border'.
* A "creator" is already created and as such locked into the human mind - and nowhere else. Communicating one's "creator" to an other person inevitably adapts and changes this "creator" in accordance with this other mind. Because of existencecentrism, a "God" cannot be omnipresent. In other words, a "God" cannot be part time present in the human mind. What is present is all there is of "God". Same applies to the hence meaningless sentence 'but there could be something beyond human comprehension'. The term "supernatural" emerged in the Middle Ages and did not exist in the ancient world.
1981 Peter Klevius outlined in an article (Resursbegär) the meaning of
what he later (1992) titled 'existencecentrism' in his book Resursbegär
('Demand for Resources' in the Swedish/Nordic creole* language now
called English). G. H. von Wright (Wittgenstein's self-appointed successor at Cambridge) strongly approved of both versions.
* Resursbegär in direct translation would be something like 'resource beggar'.
The first paragraph in the original 1981 article in a poor translation from Swedish with some added comments in brackets:
The
basic element of existence is change where the causality of events
constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution (a popular division of
the more appropriet 'adaptation'). Evolution can (therefore) be said to
be the consequence of the variables of causality in time where the
complexity (from an evolutionary point of view - i.e. not necessarily
absolute complexity) of older structures is reinforced. This development
stays in an apparent opposition to the thermodynamics of universe which
theoretically could leads to what is called "maximum entropy", i.e.
equal distribution of energy, where time itself stops. Thus, one could
fatalistically say that evolution in fact only constitutes components of
causality on its way to uniformity, where the end point of evolution is
determined by its external frame of reference i.e. (the observable)
universe, and can be summed up in the words of the philosopher Hegel:
'Pure being and nothingness are identical'. A consolation for the
intellect, however, is that the more facts science (nature) presents,
the greater appears to us the underlying structure of existence that we
cannot reach. Being able to live with and accept this uncertainty
(existencecentrism and due uncertainty* as the real "meaning of life")
is not only a must but also a privilege. Desperately lapsing into
dogmatism or hasty conclusions due to inability to live with unsolved
problems is highly unscientific.
*
You can only be uncertain within your existencecentrism. Moreover, this
uncertainty cannot even speculate beyond one's existencecentrism, only
within its ever changing complexity. And even though everything
constantly changes, the limit of existencecentrism does not because
there's no reference "outside" it.
All creation myths - except "monotheist" - start from something already existing "inside" the world.
It's shameful and
appalling of the $-thief US led West to imply that "belief" in a fancy
but destructive mythology about an impossible "monotheist" God somehow
would be more "sophistocated" than the sound views of billions of
Atheists who understand that a "god" "outside" the human realm is impossible. In its latest modern appearance it all started with US
colonial imperiaism followed by US "Red Scare" anti-Communist
propaganda, which is now targeted on China. Atheism is by supremacist
theocracy presented at best as something not reaching the level of
"monotheisms", and at worst as plain evil, when in fact the very
opposite is more than true, i.e. considering the impossibility of
"monotheist belief".
Wikipedia: Proponents of "Abrahamic" faiths
believe that God is beyond the grasp of the human mind and
transcendent, meaning that he (sic) is outside space and outside time
and therefore not subject to anything within his creation.
Peter
Klevius: So how could you possibly have "faith" in the part of God
that's beyond you? Leaving you - as Peter Klevius has stated since his
early teens - with only your "personal God", i.e. a castrated one in
your imagination.
Peter Klevius has been surrounded day and night by people
throughout his (Atheist) life, yet no one (incl. himself) has ever seen
him unhappy (having faced problems yes, and solved them, but never trapped in "idling" unhappiness).
Excerpt from Demand for Resources (P. Klevius 1992:21-22, Resursbegär, ISBN 9173288411). A follow up to the original (see below) article from 1981 which first described what later became titleds 'existencecentrism', and which 1980 was hailed by G.H. von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) and again a decade later 1991 when he read the final manuscript of the book - including this chapter on existencecentrism.
Chapt. Existencecentrism (Resursbegär 1992).
The civilized human retraces her/his steps, lights a light and allows her/himself to be enlightened - only the suffering in the past and the shadow over the future are greater.
The word 'to exist', from Latin existere - to emerge, to appear - has, like the word existence, nowadays as the main meaning pre-existing, i.e. something that has arisen/been created and now exists in the world of our senses.
To exist, i.e. existence, constitutes our vantage point when we consider our surroundings in time and space. We are existencecentered. Existence prevents godlike all-mightiness but also easily leads to self-glorifying considerations. The word anthropocentrism covers some, but not all, of the meaning of existencecentrism.
Existence stands in contrast or as a complement to the modern Protestant concept of God. Existence and God, or as I prefer to express it, human and the unconscious or unreachable (the "outer" limit of existencecentrism) together form 'everything' - God/the unreachable is thus not seen in entities but in the existence of thoughts via awareness of our existencecentrism (hence excluding even any thought about a God "residing outside" our existencecentrism - only within it, which of course eliminates God's most important definition other than as play with language).
That the human thought is locked to its subject, i.e. that someone thinks the thought, is connected to our linear cumulative conception of history. The narrative/thought creation turns into a giant inverted pyramid where stone is added to stone while the tip proportionally gets narrower as it points downward/backward and we ourselves stand on the top/latest and widest part (called 'now' in Peter Klevius 1992-94 EMAH theory that later became empirically proven through the 2006 birth of a unique set of craniopagus twins with separate cortices but connected thalanuses which made them able to 'talk inside their head' while keeping separate personalities in their cortices).
The engine of the cumulative conception of history, i.e. what determines the value of past and present-day social phenomena, exists only in the present. The perception of history as linearly cumulative has as a consequence the need for creation. Development requires a beginning. The creation stories can be divided into two main groups: Creation from something or from nothing. In more "primitive" cultural contexts, it is common to imagine some form of primeval being that is brought to life during creation, while within the monotheism influenced cultural circle, creation out of nothing with the help of God (the "first mover") is advocated. This can sometimes take surprising expressions such as e.g. in the s.c. "Big Bang" theory.
The driving forces behind science and religion are close to each other and the idea of an eternal universe where creation only exists in the human mind is difficult to accept (P. Klevius 1992:22).
Peter Klevius additional comment:
Existencecentrism, together with the stone example in the same 1992 book, laid the ground work for EMAH, which 1994 added the new findings re. cortico-thalamic two-way connections reported in Nature 1993. Although Peter Klevius had always been convinced it all happened in the thalamus, he out of intellectual cowardice didn't dare to write it down in the 1992 book - which, btw was strongly supported 1991 by G. H. von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) who 1980 also approved of the first outlining of existencecentrism in the 1981 published article Resursbegär.
Most people are Atheists, yet some are still haunted by the negativism $-embezzler (since 1971) US injected in it in its Red Scare campaign, McCarthyism etc.
Statistically Atheists in England have now surpassed anti-Atheists. However, do realize that most people who pose as religious, do not in fact believe in an irrational (i,e, outside language) God, i.e. they should therefore also be classified as Atheists - although unwittingly still supporting irrational orthodoxy because still sharing the same title of their beliefs. Moreover, there's also a tendency that people who normally don't bother much of their kins or "community", utilize historical religious traditions to make up for this lack.
The "monotheistic" God first appeared as picking Jew's as his "chosen people", then was split in three by Christianity, and finally got rid of completely in islam, which replaced Allah with a medieval human warlord whose deeds are still accepted as norm by islamists while the rest of muslims have to constantly update their "interpretation" of islam while facing Muhammed.
Why $-freeloader (since 1971) US forced its "allies" to ban information about Confucianism
The appalling supremacist and presumptuous US led Western delusion about supernatural* "monotheism" being somehow better than Atheist (i.e. not-monotheist) cultures and societies like e.g. China, Japan etc., is West's downfall trap.
You are - just like a stone in a river or the observable universe - the ever changing product of your adaptations to your ever changing surroundings. You were born with many more synapse connections than you have now as the result of your adaptation to your surroundings which has removed excessive ones (although new connections are also made albeit to a lesser extent) so to match and synchronize (update) to your life situation.
Everything we can think and talk about is within our mind (existencecentrism) - and nowhere else.
In language made up "forces beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature"* have no meaning outside language. Likewise, there is no "mystical" math connection to a "real world". Mathematical objects are all operational entities applied to where they fit, so to say. A number or a traffic sign are operational, and should not be confused with their medium, i.e. for example when crashing into a traffic sign with a number.
* Law is a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.
Quite the opposite to Aquinas, Peter Klevius points out that because of language, only humans can be irrational. A stone or an insect etc. are always rational, i.e. rationally* adapting to their surroundings. It's only in language we can be irrational. A human without language can not be irrational.
* Rational here of course means from the perspective of the insect - not from a human.
Words like nothing, nonexistence, and non-being, are ontologically meaningless. Questions like 'why is there something instead of nothing' lack definition of the proposed but impossible to define 'nothing' "alternative".
The ghost or "God" are always knowable because they exist within human existencecentrism. However, they can never be unknowable because that would imply "outside" human existencecentrism which is logically impossible.
"Monotheism" timeline
The Chinese heaven at least 2050 BC was the origin myth under which the emperor ruled, and was securely anchored within human existencecentrism, i.e. the primordial state as explained by Peter Klevius (1992) as being - with many variants - the global creation myth in every society except for the late introduction of the "monotheistic" ones. However, it was during its path via Zoroastrianism 1700 BC to Sogdia in the 6th Century BC where it culturally mixed with Indus valley, and changed character when it reached Judaism and became the racist God's "chosen people" dogma.
The sum of all adaptation/experience by an individual cannot incl. non-experience.
Since Kierkegaard, most Christians are Agnostics - but without always admitting it. Peter Klevius advise encourages them to become fully Atheists so to be able to reconcile themselves with basic (negative) Universal Human Rights of the individual, not the religious "community". After all, we are individuals, not "communities.
Existence cannot be "meaningless" because the concept of "meaningless" is part of existence inside existencecentrism. In fact, as Peter Klevius wrote 1981 (in Resursbegär), an all-mighty "god" would drown in its logical boredom, whereas for humans the very uncertainty in an eternally changing world is what gives meaning to life - to a point where even a person doomed to die prematurely, clings to hope.
There is no universally accepted consensus on what a deity is.
"God" comes from the Proto-Germanic Gaut, which traces it to the PIE root *ghu-to- ("poured"), derived from the root *gheu- ("to pour, pour a libation"). The term *gheu- is also the source of the Greek khein "to pour". Originally the word "god" and its other Germanic cognates were neuter nouns but shifted to being generally masculine under the influence of Christianity in which the god is typically seen as male. In contrast, all ancient Indo-European cultures and mythologies recognized both masculine and feminine deities.
The legitimacy of Western philosophy was thoroughly crashed by a Western "philosopher" named Ludvig Wittgenstein (the mentor of Peter Klevius mentor G.H. von Wright). Although the catholic Anscombe was a good friend with him, she didn't fully understand Wittgensteiun's curiosity about religion, psychoanalysis etc.
Swedish "alternative media" Swebbtv is sadly a prejudicial and theocratic laughing stock under a dumb and prejudicial leader.
Swebbtv's owner and opinion dictator Mikael Willgert is an extreme Sinophibe, but eagerly supports Israel's genocide against Paöestinians. He also boosts extreme conspiracy theories such as e,g, that Sweden's PM Olof Palme wasn't murdered and that it was just a "theatre murder". He also boosts the cracy idea that US government triggered nukes under the Twin Towers etc. And if someone comments criticism against what Mikael Willgert opinions then they are deleted. Mikael Willgert also seems to boost a misogynist agenda spiced with long outdated views on what women should and shoudn't do as well as women's inferior capacities as leaders etc. The only decent voice on Svebbtv is Lars Bern who seems to understand the problem with US and the possibilities with China.
.
Comments
Post a Comment