David: John your essay about Open- Source religion made me wonder
about a couple of phenomena currently observed in the United States: the rise
of the “nones” who are people upon survey that say they have no religious
identification and affiliation, and the decrease in church attendance. You
mention in your essay that “Open-Source Religion integrates horizontally” as
compared to “Closed system Religion integrates vertically”. To what extent do
you think the availability of the world wide web since the mid 90s and the
mushrooming availability of information has contributed to the decrease in
influence of organized mainstream religion especially in your generation, the
so called “millenials” who no longer have to rely on hierarchial religious
institutions for information and interpretation of religious ideas?
John: Quite a lot I
would say. If a person is computationally literate, or even semi-literate, the
cracks in the wall of established institutions are laid bare for anyone to see
on the web. Information that used to be hidden away in libraries and academia,
that required huge blocks of time to discover and synthesize, is now a thousand
times more streamlined and accessible. This definitely accounts for the
acceleration of skepticism in our society, and is reflected in decreased church
attendance as you’ve noticed, as well as a rise in economic justice movements
like Occupy Wall Street.
People I believe are
naturally resistant to the idea of becoming cogs in a machine; which is why you
see so much rebellious/aggressive behavior in most school environments for
example. In these dogmatic, hierarchical environments we are told what the
truth is and told not to question it. This is completely antithetical to human
nature. We need to explore and discover our own “truth” to be truly happy in
this life, and a vast majority of institutions simply stifle this outright
through propaganda and hierarchical authority.
David: During your stay in Brockport did you see examples of this
phenomenon where young people turned to each other and the internet rather than
to their pastor, priest, rabbi?
John: You know not so
much, because I think a lot of my friends in general fall into that “none”
category. This is not an indictment of them, I certainly understand that
rebellion and I have a lot of the same ambivalence toward the word “religion”
myself.
I think to the extent
that people are dialoguing on the internet, they likely keep this part of their
life compartmentalized from the rest. No one wants to face criticism from their
selected peer group because they don’t want to be seen as “un-cool” or
“anti-science”. And let’s face it; a lot of younger people nowadays are
drowning in apathy and materialism without much guidance for how to pursue a
“higher-life”. This is of course largely a byproduct of our disempowerment
brought about by out-dated and broken cultural memes (i.e. materialism,
rejection of afterlife experience, shallow pursuit of self-interest at the
expense of others, etc)
I would say a good
swath of the younger generation is moving toward a more indigenous form of
spirituality: in other words a return to non-coercive group ritual. You see this
most in the surge of “club kids”, and at other huge gatherings such as Burning
Man Festival. Whether you agree with some of their lifestyle choices, or views
on psychedelics or not, these movements by and large are an attempt at
rediscovering community infused with indigenous/shamanic sensibilities. So by
and large I see people turning to shamanic spirituality in some way shape or
form, whether they realize it or not.
David: You write about the role of “satanic boogy-man” which has
led to the demonization of the other who is characterized as an enemy
justifying war and other forms of attack. How would an Open source religious
orientation undermine or counteract this tendency?
John: Open-Source, in
principle, rejects the idea of absolutes. Absolute evil, absolute good, these
are polarizing terms grounded in static dogma. Open-Source models are modular,
ever-evolving. Open-Source respects diversity, whereas traditional systems
emphasize only “one true way”, and anyone in violation of that “one true way”
must be labeled evil. Look at the passing of the recent NDAA where basically
anyone can be labeled an “enemy combatant” and a “terrorist” just because you
disagree with certain government policy. This is yet another reflection of
absolutism and narrow-mindedness that can be found in fundamentalist religion.
David: You write “…MSR (Mainstream religion) also perpetuates the
cultural epidemic of sadomasochistic addiction to self-hatred. The
self-loathing person can never self-actualize, and the writhing emptiness
within can only be satiated by self-destructive behavior such as mindless
consumerism, or the demented urge to exert power and control over others.” This
reminds me that after 9/11, Americans asked in a plaintiff way “Why do they
hate us so?” and President Bush’s response was to go shopping so the terrorists
didn’t win and disrupt our economy too much. Are you implying that the
materialistic capitalism endemic in the United States is actually fueled by
Main-Stream religion’s doctrine of original sin and the defective nature of the
human being, and if so, how do you see this as working?
John: By and large
yes. While I’ll admit there is not an exact 100% correlation, whether we want
to admit it or not there is an undercurrent of religious extremism/absolutism
within our government today and there has been for a long time.
Since ancient times,
leaders have been perverting the philosophical underpinnings of spiritual
doctrine (which at its heart is meant to liberate people) in the pursuit of
personal power. First leaders claimed divine right to rule, then men like
Emperor Constantine warped and dogmatized decentralized cults like Christianity
to unite the various Pagan peoples he was conquering. While government nowadays
takes on a more secular character at first glance, the underpinnings of its
motivations flow from that merger of personal-power pursuit with
spiritual/psychological warfare.
David: You seem to point out that as human beings we all are
religious in some way whether we are consciously aware of this or not. You
write, “Guiding principles are in essence a religion: just as religion is a set
of guiding principles. Therefore, whether we admit it or not, we are all
religious creatures at heart. In that respect, we all have a stake in the
development of the OSR paradigm.” Can you say more about what that stake is and
the expectations and requirements such a stake implies can be satisfied?
John: I think anyone
that looks at the world honestly realizes we are in an absolute quagmire. There
are literally holocausts going on all over the Middle-East, Africa, and
elsewhere. Meanwhile, here in the States depression, apathy, disease, poverty,
crime, fascism, and tensions are rampant. This is all reflective of that
“Closed-System Paradigm” that pervades both our institutions and our thinking
processes.
We feel isolated,
helpless, fearful, sad, and so on because most of us have accepted the
Newtonian, Cartesian, and Institutionalized-Religious view that this world is a
pitiless, meaningless, scarcity-driven and competitive jungle where it’s
everyone for themselves, and we have no power as individuals. Whether
institutions that leverage this paradigm label themselves as “scientific” or
“religious”, they are in general agreement that we need to simply suck it up,
do what we’re told by the “experts”, and go along with the program.
I think by
participating in the Open-Source movement we are helping to support new ways of
thinking and new ways of living. By learning about horizontal integration,
shared decision-making, individualized sense-making, and rediscovering what it
means to exist in a real community with real responsibilities, we can overcome
all this pointless war and despair in the world.
David: You seem to imply a sense of urgency when you write,
“Open-Source sense making is the future starting now.” If you look at the
sociological data it seems you are right
that Open-Source sense making on religious and theological ideas has already
begun. What will be further signs that it is progressing? Also, some
commentators say that Pope Benedict resigned because he is aware that the
Catholic Church is a failing institution and that he is not up to the task of
leading the church in this new age. You were a Catholic yourself. Can you
imagine an Open-Source Catholic church? If so, what would it look like?
John: Well you’ll never
find out what’s developing by watching the mainstream media, that’s for sure. I
think we can only know by A) tapping into alternative media, and B) reaching
out to others and searching for ourselves. Visiting web-sites, dialoguing with
others in forums, watching videos, visiting alternative communities,
communicating via Skype; all of these are important. I think only by
reconnecting with each other and opening up to one another can we ever really
know “what’s going on”. When people are willing to engage in respectful and
intelligent dialogue with one another without scoffing at the others beliefs,
and arrive at core issues they can agree on moving forward, we will know we are
making progress. Also the closer science and religion come to reuniting is another
surefire sign that evolution is progressing. Unfortunately it is not some
miraculous, over-night transformation. We all have a part to play in this unfolding
story.
To answer your second
question, I think Benedict resigned for a number of reasons. Pedophilia
scandals, failing health, institutional-politicking, power-games; all of these
likely had a hand in his historic resignation. I am sorry to say I don’t have
much faith in the Catholic Church “opening up” as long as it’s tied to the
Vatican. And even if it were simply to split with the Vatican, we would simply
have another branch of Protestantism which is still entrenched in biblical
teachings/history that is deeply bias, corrupt, and misrepresentative of the
true story.
If any religion keeps perpetuating the myth
that it has the “one true story”, they can’t call themselves “Open”. Open
respects diversity, but also embraces our similarities, our wholeness. Take for
example the story of Noah’s Ark; there are literally dozens of flood/ark
stories from cultures all over the world. This blows up the whole notion that
there is “one true religion” brought down from on high. So if any religion is
to evolve and call itself Open, it must not only move away from
centralized/dogmatic authority, it must also adopt that principle that our
mythologies may have a common source.
David: Over all I found your essay remarkable in many ways. Your
idea about a burgeoning Open-Source religion is very powerful and profound.
What are you hoping that your readers will take away from your essay?
John: My main hope is
that people begin to engage in true self-evaluation and critical thinking. We
take a lot for granted, and just assume certain histories, events,
philosophies, etc, are “true”, even though we’ve never researched them
thoroughly ourselves. I hope people stop accepting what they’re told from
authority figures, and seek truth in their own way and on their own terms.
Personal empowerment is my endgame I suppose.
From this new
consciousness I think people’s actions will take on a new character and we can
reshape not only our own lives, but our neighbors’ lives, and our communities
as well. I am a true believer in global-thinking and local-action. Reshaping
our local government structures, our education systems, monetary systems, our
food-distribution systems, our business-structures; all of this is possible
with a new consciousness, so that is what I hope to foster and nurture.
David: It seems like Open Source religion will be the contribution
of the Millenials who have come of age in the internet age. It is not the
religion of their parents, grandparents, and previous generations. It is
something that your generation is using to transform the world in a more
positive way. Who do you see the major leaders as being, or if that is not the
right way of looking at the phenomenon what will continue to develop it as the
religious orientation of the future?
John: I think we are
moving away from traditional cults of personality. This is not to say we won’t
have “leaders”, just not leaders in the traditional sense of the word. Often we
think of leaders as these strong-men, rally-around types who talk tough and
inspire others through charisma alone. The new generation of leaders will be
more willing to share decision-making equitably, rely on the advice of their
cohorts and communities, and will speak through their actions rather than
through their words. The next generation of leaders will also be defined by
integrity.
In general it will be
a collective endeavor. As Buckminster Fuller used to say we exist within a
global game. Because we’re all in this together when one of us loses, we all
lose. Contrary to Darwinian thinking, evolution does not move forward due to
mindless competition and “survival of the fittest”. Systems Science and men
like Alfred Russell Wallace teach us that Evolution advances through the cooperation
and coupling of species. To evolve, we must unite.
No comments:
Post a Comment