Community of Infinite Colour

[Sheather]

cult/kəlt/

Noun:

A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

All religions are cults, by the first definition of the word. With gods, transcedental drugs figures and objects all round. They shouldn't have automatic negative connotation, though in general, of religions and cults, I believe that from them comes more bad than good.

[mutant]

hypocrites!

many in the community are psychedelic believers - just because they dont like being called religious it doesn't mean they are not. You call it spirituality but it is the same as the religious spirituality of a christian.

[GregKasarik]

I think very much like you actually and have no time for either, that is what i was trying to say by the question marks near "religious?? sacraments". I dont think Greg actually wants to create a new religion / cult but rather try to enable the people to be allowed to use the sacraments for spiritual purposes, i.e to move away from religion and cult bodies and discover the divine for themselves with out the forced ideas imposed by religious cult groups, He isn't saying we have to see things the way he does, that i can see at least, and maybe his wording is being read wrong by me or by you?? IDK, but I think Greg is seeking freedom from religious and legal persecution for the use of entheogenics, in order that people that want to can self discover at there own will and form there own beleifs and travel there own path.

Greg correct me if I am wrong, please??

edited for typos bad typer.

 

You are correct in your assessment of my intentions, although I would say that I do intend to try to create a new religious philosophy and cultural movement. But this is ultimately based around the idea that we can never have any certainty and that to impose one's spiritual understanding on others is ultimately futile and pointless.

I have no desire to rule the world, or force it to take a path of my choosing. It seems to me that people simply haven't read my homepage (http://kasarik.com/index.php), where I explicitly state the following:

 

"This website is devoted to my journey of understanding and my goal is to communicate what I have learnt to others. Not so that you may believe everything I believe (you can't, so don't bother even trying: the first Disciple is always the first Heretic) but so that you may partake of your own journey of discovery and to find the answers that make sense to you.

 

 

 

Ulimately it is up to each of us to make sense of the world and we can only do so by listening to our hearts, imposing reason on our thoughts and engaging with the experience of the spiritual journey. Your answers cannot be my answers and if they seem to be, than we have not discussed in enough detail to discover the areas in which we must surely differ.

 

 

 

If you think you have the answers already, you are almost certainly wrong. How could a mortal of less than 100 years have the answers to questions that lie within the realms of an Infinite reality?"

 

 

Those who berate me for being unaware of my own humanity have failed to acknowledge that I also address this very issue on the same page:

 

"In the course of putting this site together, I have realised that there is a real risk that my path strays from that which I initially hoped for and the reason for this is my own Ego.

 

 

As the Australian rock band, Skyhooks famously sang, "Ego is not a dirty word". But one must take it into account, particularly when embarking on a venture such as this, where it is possible that my words will come to shape the reality in which people live their lives. Hubris, arrogance and pride are real risks, when your mind travels the paths of the Infinite.

 

But the least important part of this website is

what I believe!"

It is clear that many of the respondents who are so angry, aggressive and hateful have for their own reasons decided to discount what I've actually written and instead have chosen to unleash their own fears and paranoia upon me

I am able to monitor the paths that people take through my website, and one of the more disheartening aspects of this whole thread was that the insults and hate came before anyone here had actually spent any time reading my writings, or analysing my thoughts. Rather than assess what I had said, they lazily imposed their own assumptions upon me and attacked on that basis. You'll note that absolutely none of the posts have actually addressed any of my writings in any concrete way, or given any indication that they have attempted to grapple with any of the complex philosophical issues that I've discussed.

At the end of the day, there isn't much that I can do if people decide to ignore my writings and actions and instead wish to believe the worst of me based on their own fantasy.

This is an example of why the Ethical Principle is important. Rather than attempting to view my world from my perspective and judging me accordingly, they have instead decided to view me from one that is completely alien to anything that I have ever said or done. The resulting hostility, anger and misrepresentation is exactly what we expect when people choose to not engage with others as others, but instead choose to engage with them as an imaginary stereotype of their own prejudice. This sort of dehumanisation of the other is largely what is responsible for for so much of the pain and misery that infests our world.

Had these people actually engaged with me as a person, they would have discovered that I am not the demon that they've automatically assumed me to be. But now, having been so vocal and strident in their denunciation, they will find it nearly impossible to swallow their pride, admit that they might have been wrong and reassess me on the basis of my actions, rather than their assumptions.

It is sad, but hardly something that I can do anything about. Ultimately, it is a reflection of who they are as people and the aspects of the Infinite that they have chosen to explore. All I can do is hold true to my own principles, standards, hopes and aspirations and hope that by doing so I am able to encourage detractors to change their tunes.

If nothing else, it gives me an addition challenge to face and overcome. :-)

Edited December 20, 2011 by GregKasarik

[GregKasarik]

When I started reading this post, my eye had been caught by the name of this new community, the community of infinite colour. What a beautiful name. Further down, it became the community of infinite light, even more beautiful. But in reality, we are creating divisions by the use of such descriptors. There are those of us with the light, or of the colours. Then there are those of us who aren't. Referred to as "them", or "they". In reality, we are the community. The whole. The one. And our experiences, while different, all refer to the same.

No. It has always been "Community of Infinite Colour" and will remain so for very good reasons. A name like "Community of Infinite Light" ignores the fact that many will decide to explore darker (although not necessarily evil) paths. Community recognises that there are an infinite number of paths to be travelled and beyond the Ethical and Generosity Principles, doesn't seek to impose its will on the paths that people should take.

I make no apologies for either of these Principles, as I have no desire to create a Community that values the actions of those who seek to bring evil into this world.

I find it interesting that you sum up many of my reasons for choosing the name, while assuming that it is my intent to create an "us vs them" paradigm.

And Greg, please try to understand the nature of division. Already you have divided the community in to two, one group who like your principles, and the other who dislike the idea of organised religion. It is such divisions that then give rise to prejudice, insularity, fear and intolerance.

 

Actually, I have created no divisions whatsoever. These divisions are simply a reflection of the simple fact that we are all engaged in different paths and subsequently view the world differently. Difference is unavoidable and what matters is how we respond to difference. It isn't difference that gives "rise to prejudice, insularity, fear and intolerance"; rather it these are bred by the failure to accept difference. Insularity produces fear of the unknown and different and this emotion gives birth to prejudice and intolerance. Within the spiritual it inevitably leads to the imposition of dogma and a sameness that is a repudiation of the Infinite nature of the Divine.

Latitude breeds tolerance and embraces difference, recognising that through difference we find rebirth and are reinvigorated. It understands that sameness breeds stagnation and that change is as inevitable as the ever onwards flow of time.

Others have chosen to respond to my initial post with offensive, baseless and personal attacks, while I have refrained from responding in the same way. I am surprised that you have difficulty in determining from whence the prejudice, insularity, fear and intolerance has arisen.

[dworx]

abandoned

Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx

[GregKasarik]

@ Dworx

Since the rukus started there have been quite a number of people who have visited my website and read various bits and pieces. My main point is that the initial attacks started before anyone had actually bothered to make any real attempts to establish my position.

A big part of the problem is that we live in a society which is quite hostile to the mystical an conceptualisations of the Divine. This hostility is well embedded even within the mainstream religious groupings, who seem to think that religious dogma is OK, but religious experience is to be frowned upon. Some people seem outraged that I should claim a connection to the Divine and seem to regard it as something akin to blasphemy.

I use the term "religious", because it is the best fit for my goals of obtaining "religious freedom", but have to admit that it isn't the best fit for my personal situation an has probably lead to some of the antagonism that I've encountered here. I wonder what would have happened if I'd used the word "spiritual"? Although I suspect that it doesn't matter what I say, or do; I'm going to piss of a considerable number of people whichever way I jump.

The Principles are themselves belief neutral, in that they are just as applicable to a secular as spiritual framework.

Your use of the compounds is precisely the sort of thing that I am working towards being allowed. For me, this is the key aspect of these and the one reason why it is important that people be allowed to access these sorts of altered states of consciousness. If these were simply just another drug, like alcohol, I wouldn't have been inspired to take up the challenge in the first place.

I really appreciate your support on these forums and your attempts to understand where I'm coming from.

Greg

Edited December 20, 2011 by GregKasarik

[Dolos]

Greg, on your website the "the eternity paradox" opens as "the divine principle"..seems to be a glitch.

[whitewind]

Greg,

with all due respect, you are very easily offended. It makes it very difficult to criticise your work as you are continually playing the guilt card, suggesting we are attacking you personally instead of being objective and criticising your work.

I think the problem is that you do see yourself as the work, there is plenty of mention of yourself on your website. For a start, the website is in your name. Your name is in large print at the top of the page, a quote by yourself is on the home page.

No wonder you feel that you are being attacked! You are the main man in this drama. You are the most important person, the creator of this movement, the person who came up with the ideas, the man who is creating a new belief system.

Your ego is very strong, and although you have developed some great ideas, you feel it is important to let us know that it was you who decided to put them down and make something of them.

I would like to discuss the principles, but I can't get past the man who is in the way shouting, "It was me!"

Others have chosen to respond to my initial post with offensive, baseless and personal attacks, while I have refrained from responding in the same way. I am surprised that you have difficulty in determining from whence the prejudice, insularity, fear and intolerance has arisen.

 

This is the first major division created, intentionally or not, by your work. And since you are the creator of the work, you must also take responsibility for that division. I am curious, are you interested in healing this divide, or is defending your ego considered more important?

Regards,

[FancyPants]

^^^ This!

I have no quarrels with the basic ideas Greg's put forward, in fact laud them as similar to some of my own; BUT... Whitewind summed what I was going to say so I won't bother repeating.

If you're going to start a religion (which it would be regardless of your protestations) you have to be prepared for a metric shittonne of criticism.

[rahli]

I might have this entirely wrong but I see Greg as an activist.

He writes letters to the government under his name then refers them to his website under his name. If he didn't do so folks would be accusing him of not standing by his beliefs.

[dworx]

abandoned

Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx

[ThunderIdeal]

hypocrites!

many in the community are psychedelic believers - just because they dont like being called religious it doesn't mean they are not. You call it spirituality but it is the same as the religious spirituality of a christian.

 

no it isn't.

[GregKasarik]

Greg,

with all due respect, you are very easily offended. It makes it very difficult to criticise your work as you are continually playing the guilt card, suggesting we are attacking you personally instead of being objective and criticising your work."

With all due respect, I suspect that we are reading two different threads.

Lets have a look at some of the things that have been said in just this thread.

Much of it consists of a tired repetition of the inane and deluded claim that I am attempting to start a "cult" (in the modern, pejorative sense of the word) and all of the stupidity that followed.

 

"You write alot and say very little, typical of cult leaders."

 

"Some people would deem being a cult leader to be a dark and evil path.

 

"Being ambiguous is exactly what I would expect from an egotisical person wishing to be a cult leader."

 

"Some peoples egos require a group structure to be the leader of for power and control, generally because of deep set feelings of insecurity and or psychopathic tendencies."

 

"A truly tolerant attitude would be to believe what you want, allow others to do the same and not start a cult,"

 

"The point is you want to start a religeon, a cult."

 

"the whole one man takes-on religion trip is usually unbalanced and grandiose and no doubt authoritarian and narcissistic"

 

"To not only assume your view of these concepts as universal but to prescribe them to religion proper shows a good case of BIG HEAD syndrome."

 

"I've seen up close and personal what cults do to people, they all claim high and lofty ideals but the reality is so very different. Wake the fuck up."

 

"You are doing a remarkable job of sounding like a holier than thou. If you believe your understandings and paths aren't important, why are you trying to spread these mysterious understandings couched in unusual phrasing and idiotic paradoxes."

 

"As far as I can see, the cult leader attitude of Bretloth isn't too far off the mark."

 

"You say you are starting a religeon, a religeon is a cult, you are the leader as you claim, therefore you are a cult leader, or wannabe cult leader more correctly. Cult leader various studies have shown are generally insecure and or psychopathic."

 

"Dont need some self important holier than thou wannabe cult leader telling me what to do lol.."

 

"Actually you trying to distant your cult from the word cult is deceptive."

 

"Is the leader of a new cults character not applicable to the cult, and discussing it?"

 

"Here we go, that's another cult, get your own sayings. "

 

"How about for starters all the principles you spout here, you sure as shit didn't come up with them. Repacking other peoples work and claiming it as your own is disgusting to me, you should be ashamed. I've read all the books you have, you got nothing new. Not even even using drugs is new, that cult in japan with the sarin gasings loved lsd.."

 

"You claimed to be providing an enlightened way, for one to do that they would have to be enlightened, which you are obviously not. You're nothing special, or am I. You've read a bunch of books, had some ecstactic experiences, are most likely deeply insecure and need to build this cult for your own ego's need. No one needs this cult except you it seems."

 

"Psychopathy and the Characteristics of a Cult Leader" An

entire

plagerised chapter posted.

 

"These dialogical ploys on 'patronising' as projective identification are old-hat and here serve only to blind yourself of criticism."

 

"Some obvious narcissistic motifs in your story include the website of your religion being your own name, seeing yourself as some great prophet of eternity"

 

"of course, creating a thick and complex religious ideology on

your own

for people to adopt without input from or co-designing with those people points to a grand and some might say messiah complex"

 

"thus displaying covert forms of domination, that eventually come to be couched in the name of 'religious freedom '"

If you read back through the thread, you'll note that in these posts there was no real attempt to discuss any of the Principles. Rather there was a lunatic focus on my belief that I have something worthwhile to say and the fact that I am in the process of trying to put together an organisation and to gain the support of others in order to help me say it.

None of these people know me, beyond what they've seen in my writings. In each case, they effectively claimed that my writings are nothing but a sham and that my true (if unconscious) motivation was my "unbalanced", "grandiose, "narcissistic", "neurotic" and whatever else, "ego".

WTF does the word "ego" even mean in an operational sense and why is it a crime? Outside of the largely discredited Freudian Psychoanalysis, it has no real place in the lexicon of the modern psychologist, or psychiatrist. I shouldn't be surprised that it would be used indiscriminately by people who can't even grasp the linguistic complexities of the word "cult".

Ultimately, the foolishness only stopped, when I published a copy of my Five Factor Personality report and stated clearly that I am fully OK with undergoing any form of appropriately peer reviewed psychological assessment in order to demonstrate the baseless idiocy of the claims made against me. That I should have to go to such lengths is disturbing and I doubt that any of my accusers would be willing to do the same.

Throughout all of these rabid accusations (including a very serious and entirely fraudulent claim of plagiarism), I have done my best to remain calm and not respond in kind. For the most part, I endeavoured to respond to the criticisms made, even if it seemed obvious that they weren't advanced in bad faith.

I think the problem is that you do see yourself as the work, there is plenty of mention of yourself on your website. For a start, the website is in your name. Your name is in large print at the top of the page, a quote by yourself is on the home page.

Actually, the "problem" is nothing of the kind. I put my ideas on the internet and make it clear that they are my ideas, rather than hiding behind a nom de plume, which was the course suggested to me by several supporters. In doing so, I have paid the price, as I am now largely unemployable, especially within the community services sector, after several referees discovered my writings and subsequently withdrew their support.

I aspire to a world in which people quit hiding behind false identities and had the courage to be honest about who they are and what they stand for. When I write it is the knowledge that I must be able to stand behind every sentence and may be called to justify every seemingly innocuous phrase should it somehow become twisted out of context.

Certainly I can get things wrong, but I make no apologies for taking a stand and using my own name and am amazed that you'd seek to condemn me for doing so. What kind of craven reality do people inhabit when standing up for what you value and being "the change that you want to see in the world" is viewed as pathological grandstanding?

I suggest that you read a bit more of my writings. If you do so, you'd discover that beyond the home page, where I explain who I am and where I am coming from, there is actually very little mention of me in the website itself. From memory, I tell an little story about an encounter with PRC and I mention my personal experience in the "Beginners' Guide to Safe Tripping". There might be other self references, but not that I can recall.

It is absurd that you should criticise me for highlighting my most quote on my own website. Would you prefer one from Jobo the Clown?

Your insinuations are the ridiculous equivalent of whining because I published a book under my name. By all means, you have my encouragement to bitch as much as you like when my site starts to look like this: http://www.nithyananda.org/, or this: http://www.oshoworld.com/.

But until it does, can we please have a little bit of perspective?

No wonder you feel that you are being attacked! You are the main man in this drama. You are the most important person, the creator of this movement, the person who came up with the ideas, the man who is creating a new belief system.

See the above quotes if you want to know why I feel like I'm being attacked. Did it occur to you that it might have something to do with actually being attacked?

I suppose not...

Your ego is very strong, and although you have developed some great ideas, you feel it is important to let us know that it was you who decided to put them down and make something of them.

Why this "your ego is very strong", psychobable? I have a good self esteem and am proud of my ideas and when someone actually gets around to trying to discuss them with me they will discover that I do so with with vigour, passion and hopefully a bit of humility.

I fail to see why you believe this to be pathological.

I would like to discuss the principles, but I can't get past the man who is in the way shouting, "It was me!"

Strange. I see no attempt to discuss the Principles. It makes sense that if you really wanted to discuss the Principles, that is what would in fact do.

This is the first major division created, intentionally or not, by your work. And since you are the creator of the work, you must also take responsibility for that division. I am curious, are you interested in healing this divide, or is defending your ego considered more important?

Of course my work creates division. Anything new will always be fought relentlessly by those opposed to change, or who perceive themselves as being threatened. And don't forget that some people are just antisocial jerks who, given a chance, will bitch about fairly much anything.

Much of what I write is highly philosophical and might be beyond the grasp of some; it has taken me decades of hard work to get this far. But even if understood correctly it will be opposed by those who's views are contradicted. The Divine Principle is an excellent example of this. While there are variations on the theme, the only objection that anyone has yet advanced is to beg the question of God knowing that He is God because he is in fact "God". As you might know, begging the question is considered an automatic and epic fail within philosophy. But not only do quite intelligent people continue to do so, but they find themselves unable to let go of their objection, even after they acknowledge that they are in fact begging the question.

But unless you long for the stagnant group think of oblivion, or the oppression of dogma, I would suggest that division is in fact an inevitable part of life and growth. What matters is how we handle division. We can either do so with grace, empathy and understanding, or we can behave like ungracious, ill-mannered teenagers.

You present a false dichotomy with your question; as if there is opposition between my "ego" and healing this rift that I supposedly bear full responsibility for. I would suggest that a healthy "ego" would seek the resolution of rifts and a healing where possible. I certainly hold no animosity towards the authors of the above quotes. But I doubt that there is much that I can do to change the minds of those who went on the earlier rampage, beyond persevering and demonstrating, through my actions, that they are wrong. At the moment, their minds are made up and their disdain has been proclaimed publicly for all to see. I doubt that they have the courage to take a step back from their denunciations, swallow their pride and admit that they might have been wrong.

For my part, I will continue to endeavour to be civil and to respond to criticisms in good faith and with patience. If I am shown to have treated someone unfairly, or unjustly I will do my best to apologise. If I am attacked, I will defend myself vigorously, while doing my best to remain calm and unruffled.

If you are hoping that on the basis of a few annoying rants by mostly anonymous fools in the peanut gallery, I will fold like a house of cards, recant my writings, cease to have an opinion and skulk off to the shadows, you are going to be very disappointed.

[FancyPants]

What do you consider a "fool"? And why are their opinions invalid on an open forum?

Why do you consider the questioning of (A/)God to be appropriate, yet the questioning of your character, not?

I'm not attacking you; I'm merely trying to take in what you're putting out there (because as you say, we don't know you in person so we're only going off what you give us) and decide for myself where you're coming from, and what the possible repercussions might be. What's so "annoying" and wrong about wanting to see all parts of the person whose ideals one is supposed to follow? Why don't you admit that such a role is deservedly open to criticism? I mean can't you see and understand the general mistrust from thousands of years of horror borne from religious bastardry? Which is precisely why I said earlier that even if YOU YOURSELF remain free from egotistical power issues, won't ever mean that your words aren't possibly going to be bastardised also. That's a huuuuuge responsibility!

FWIW, my remark about "role playing" was more an amusing observation than accusation. Like I said, my mind's not made up yet.

[chnt]

good point fancypants.

[mutant]

no it isn't.

 

ok I give you that, its not the SAME

its of the same type though. religious spirituality resides in the brain, we got special circuits to produce the experiences...

actually psychedelic theism is much stronger and genuine, as it actually provides the 'gods' and 'godly experiences' christians only dream of...

Edited December 23, 2011 by mutant

[FancyPants]

You realise, Mutant, that Greg is saying there must be NO GENUINE/TRUE/INEFFABLE deity? Why are machine elves from D all part of Terrence McKenna's spread psychedelic entheogenic experience, but whatever genuine deities YOU hallucinate are true?

The very nature of his principles is divisive; some are going to believe that an encounter (however it came about via drugs, starvation, meditation, piety etc) with a deific being is REAL; while some are just going to shrug off the experience as false.

Where is the individual human perception in all this? If, Greg, you can't even take that into account with criticism, how can you reasonably expect to take your Word out there in order to better help people when you're not even listening to other people's perceptions in the first place?

[Dolos]

You realise, Mutant, that Greg is saying there must be NO GENUINE/TRUE/INEFFABLE deity?

 

I don't think that's what he is saying at all. He is leaving that up to YOU to decide. Maybe some should read his website first cause I have and I have a different take on it because of having done so. The very nature of ALL principles are divisive...It all depends on your point of view...Talk about between a rock and a hard place....Good on you Greg for putting yourself out there. I wonder how many here would be prepared to do so considering the legalities of it all.

[FancyPants]

I did actually read it when the OP was made, but will re-read again to make sure I've got it right. That doesn't negate the importance of being extremely thorough and careful with what he's doing. He's obviously incredibly intelligent, no question, and very proactive (which I can admit I'm not), and doing a lot for this particular community. How Greg reacts to a lot of things is important to gauge a sense of who he is and why he's doing what he's trying to achieve; PARTICULARLY when interacting only online (since I couldn't get to EGA). He's got a hard slog to convince people he's genuinely trying to change things for the positive; it's unrealistic to expect otherwise. I laud his efforts TRULY! There's a cliche about good intentions for a reason.

[whitewind]

If you are hoping that on the basis of a few annoying rants by mostly anonymous fools in the peanut gallery, I will fold like a house of cards, recant my writings, cease to have an opinion and skulk off to the shadows, you are going to be very disappointed.

Out of curiosity, do you consider me as one of those fools? Who else of us here would you consider to be fools?

[Dolos]

Love your new avatar funnyPants...very festive....

[Mycot]

I think that Greg getting attacked in this thread is to a large extent his own fault. This is due to him failling to clearly communicate his intentions while getting drawn into one debate after another. Its really funny and sad at the same time.

What I see on the site are some philosopical musings of one person. It hasn't been indicated that these are central tenents of a religion so I just take them to be some philosopical musings. Personally they are not to my philosopical and literary taste but hell they are only one persons musings why take them so seriously.

After all philosophy itself can be a long drawn out discusion with many points of disagreement. I must admit though that Greg himself appears at times to take these philosopical musings and principles over-seriously thereby contributing to accusations of egocentricity and cult leadership.

Persons who wish to use componds within religious/spiritual contexts should be allowed to do so under the human right of religious freedom. Getting this past the government is frequently a difficult task as can be seen in the history of the Brasilian government with Santo Daime. One of the fears that authority contends with is the fear of open slather irresponcible drug-taking when deciding issues in this area..

Edited December 26, 2011 by Mycot

[CβL]

It takes bravery to persevere, and wisdom to tack - but can one do both?

[mutant]

With such a topic, religion, you cannot be divisive enough. In fact, each person talking in such a topic should better first give his definition of god. Soon enough, we would see that the very nature of experiencing god is so different that there are as many gods as believers. Well, sort of.

FancY:

You realise, Mutant, that Greg is saying there must be NO GENUINE/TRUE/INEFFABLE deity?

No I did not realise it, but I can agree, if I am getting it right as you said it. There's no real/true god. God as a concept must be one of the most non-definate words: it represents a wide range of stuff, mostly stuff deriving from people's fear of death.

Why are machine elves from D all part of Terrence McKenna's spread psychedelic entheogenic experience, but whatever genuine deities YOU hallucinate are true?

I suppose 'Machine elves' is something only persons in modern times and societies would hallucinate in masses, after reading a specific author, this is my point of view. I am not hallucinating deities, but why do you think I would coin a vision true or false. A vision is a vision. My use is 'spiritual' and but not religious. I am an atheist remember?

The very nature of his principles is divisive; some are going to believe that an encounter (however it came about via drugs, starvation, meditation, piety etc) with a deific being is REAL; while some are just going to shrug off the experience as false.

also sounds like a decent universal approach to the religious experience. both takes are correct.

the religious experience is real as an experience, in that the person experienced it. it is false in that it is only experienced in the head of the person [especially if the person is convinced he contacted some real life deity of some form]. Doesn't sound dogmatic as a 'bad cult' to my ears.

Where is the individual human perception in all this?

In that each individual is approaching and perceiving deific truths in his own formula, his own way. In the end, the person should be seeking not the most "genuine" form/approach to god, but the form/approach that suits him and his needs best. How can it be more individual than that?

Again, I am not sure if that is Greg saying, just answering to your comments.

from what I understand greg is psychedelic and theologic activist, and I see the attacks quite unfound

Edited December 29, 2011 by mutant

[whitewind]

 

The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures | 646.53 MB

Type Self Improvement

 

 

For at least the last fifty thousand years, and probably much longer, people have practiced religion. Yet little attention has been given, either by believers or atheists, to the question of whether this universal human behavior might have an evolutionary basis. Did religion evolve, in other words, because it helped people in early societies survive?

In this original and controversial book, Nicholas Wade, a longtime reporter for the New York Timess Science section, gathers new evidence showing why religion became so essential in the course of human evolution and how an instinct for faith has been hardwired into human nature. This startling thesis is sure to catch the attention of both believers and nonbelievers. People of faith may not warm to the view that the minds receptivity to religion has been shaped by evolution. Atheists may not embrace the idea that religious expression evolved because it conferred essential benefits on ancient societies and their successors. As The Faith Instinct argues, however, both groups must address the fact, little understood before now, that religious behavior is an evolved part of human nature. How did we evolve to believe? Wade shows that the instinct for religious behavior is wired into our neural circuits much like our ability to learn a language.

Religion provided the earliest human societies with the equivalents of law and government, giving these societies an edge in the struggle for survival. As a force that binds people together and coordinates social behavior, religion supported another significant set of social behaviors: aggression and warfare. Religious behavior, both good and ill will remain an indelible component of human nature so long as human societies need the security and cohesion that belief provides.

Social scientists once predicted that religion would progressively fade away as societies advanced in wealth and education. They were wrong. The first objective and nonpolemical book of its kind, The Faith Instinct reveals that to understand the persistence of faith, one must first acknowledge that religious behavior is embedded in human nature.

 

I didn't bother downloading this, largely because I think it's bullshit. I was brought up in religion, and I have no instinct for faith whatsoever. I think it's intellectual laziness coupled with fear. Overcome your fear and use your ability to reason, and any leanings towards religion don't just fade away, they actually become rather repulsive.