The labour that brings you to my screen is verry much alienated. Just because you think you're monetising you time directly doesn't solve this. What about all of the production of the goods that your content is viewed through or the distribution of those goods or even the computers that you are using and so on?
If religion is a particular system of faith and worship then one could say that capitalism (which subsumes everything in the modern world) is by far the most powerful and predominate religion that has ever existed. Our faith in it as an economic system and our worship of the dollar (globally) is primary in our current modern landscape where economic survival is everything and our lives our almost entirely shaped around it. All else including traditional religion is absolutely secondary to the demands of labor and consumerism under capitalism. Thoughts?
Hmmm, I can't speak for other civilizations, but in China, as far as I concretely remember, the word for religion is the same at least since Tang Dynasty. It's also an indigenous word.
But in some literatures from the east Zhou Dynasty, I remember seeing the mentioning of ceremonies about supernaturals without using the word "教" for religion. So maybe that's what Diego was talking about.
Is it possible to demystify the process of production for individuals within capitalism? I think that labour will remain alienated pending some huge calamity. Though I do remember realising at some point whilst growing up that there were only a certain number of cars or of any commodity. It was a moment that I actually connected commodity to a concrete thought about production rather than just fetishising. Which I went back to doing within moments.
@1:13:30 Pills: "A plant needs atmosphere to grow." But the atmosphere is generated by plants. Let's see if I'm getting the gist of the materialist arguments. Materialist conditions somehow generate ideologies, which in turn result in changes to material conditions. This process is rhizomatic, in the sense of not being wholly predetermined - there are accidents that represent a kind of freedom in the "system". Ideologies determine in large measure, but again not wholly, the behaviors of humans and their part in changing the material conditions. Humans are for the most part deluded, especially by ideology, into believing that they have freedom (and knowledge how) to change the conditions, when in fact their actions are largely automatic and influenced by ideology. I didn't understand how rationality in the system itself must lead to the "tipping points" needed for change. Is the claim that material conditions are internally rational? Following "laws" perhaps? It seems to me that the metaphysical question of the bootstrapping or origin of material conditions (prior to ideologies) is being elided here. Which came first, plants or atmosphere? seems unanswerable.
The atmosphere formed mainly from gases that came from volcanoes. Gases like hydrogen sulfide, methane, and a shit ton of carbon dioxide. Then the earth's surface cooled enough for water to collect (much of the CO2 dissolved into the oceans) and then eventually the conditions were such that cyanobacteria could exist and evolve and further alter the earth's atmosphere through metabolic processes that put a lot more oxygen into the atmosphere and that made it possible for animals and plants to evolve. It's some what of a symbiotic process I suppose, but the initial conditions were at some point just right for bacteria to exist and that really got us going. One could actually argue that religion (going back to tribal paganism that predates recorded history) represents an analogous-in this case memetic or ideological-evolution that has made it possible for humans to categorize the world and to communicate through language and think and create culture (from the word cult), and much like the material world, our conceptual world is undergirded by language which is also bounded, like the material world is by the laws of physics. Just thinking out loud if you will-your comment got me thinking haha! 😄
Thought of this quote when you guys were talking about meaning, "For all anyone knows nothing is. Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long as it is honored. One acts on assumptions. What do you assume?" Tom Stoppard
Religion = Religare = keep together or tie up it together. It is a latin concept, so probably it comes with the latin empire and the relationship of the empire with different cultures and believes (none even the Greeks had a specific name for this).The idea of religion is to keep the community together. And everything in the Bible/holy book, even the idea of the Church/Holy home is to keep the the community under the same believes, law, traditions, values, etc. and a place and a hierarchy to keep, gather, share, be, so on. A religion can be polytheist or monotheist if keep the community together. Different religions keep together different communities. Thats the idea of the concept "religion", so, it is independent of the idea of god, or the kind of god, or the number of gods it has. We can think about this concept, back to the time it was generated (maybe 1st century or earlier), as the nowadays concept of culture, that helps us to discriminate or classify communities. I can add, the problem of religions to be together nowadays is different of the reasons that keep them fighting before. Nowadays, if you live in a place where there are religions with different believes or traditions: For example, a religion against to kill together with another one that kills living beings in rituals... the inner conflict and fear will be for sure, because the community with blood rituals will look for living beings to kill in the other community (it is obvious they will not kill their own people if they can kill people from other community). Same problem with religions that enhance the act of die fighting for something, so on. Furthermore, a person without religion who believes in cannibalism or who knows what with people who has not the same believes (and doesnt know that person with those believes lives among them). Be different but same makes predictions about behaviour of the other more difficult. And uncertainly makes things more stressing. In Asia (China, Japan, India), sure they use "teaching", since the idea there is that you stay together under a teaching that you believe or think reasonable or convenient for you. There the figure of the monk is very important since they can live (be a pattern for the other to follow) or tell to the illiterate what the text says, so for the people to understand and collect Karma or whatever to be able to read and be a monk in another life. A teaching is "a road" in life to a death for another life (next level) or the liberation (or integration in nature). The relationship of the oriental cultures with this kind of things is not as a "big community" (with all the humans beings integrated or able to be living the religion), thats why the idea of reliigare is not useful or aplicable. The "teachings" tells to each social strata or sexual being what they must do in the life they have to "step up" in the next life. What is to say: the teachings keep each one it its place, not together at all. Probably this kind of rigid hierarchy relationship with gods and believes in the Mediterranean civilisations was similar before Christianity (or before imperian Roman law and texts), since only the pharaon or religious leader or chaman or alike had contact with gods, and the leader who has no direct contact with god/s will have personal relationship with the one who has. From the top of this hierarchy to the bottom the power or relation with gods will go down to nothing (slaves or people captured from another place). So, when you talk about God in this chat, you are talking about the "social-family god" generated after the concept of "religare", a god of the community (a god-father everybody can have relationship with as brothers and sisters, or subjective perception about or even reject him and become himself a god). You are not talking about the god of the elite that keep/change a king on the throne (Lets remember that even nowadays, any king is king because a gods will) and ask for submission to that king to the rest of the people (a god-power giver to one or very few human beings who has no idea and dont mind about your existence, since you are useful in life or death only if you obey, keep on or give your life for the king/queen/pope he wants). If you understand those modern or christian text about religion or god as a dialogue or relationship with the father, the understanding of what is going on there is far more easy.
Wow. So much hot air. “The word Religion already implies ideology”? What? The word religion means to re-bind, now that is to re-connect, to re-member. So come on, it implies integration. In integration of what? Maybe if you stop chattering you’d experience It and you would feel the need to say so much.
I get what you're saying but, I think they see it the way zizek does, and I agree, because of the very definition of ideology. We all, as humans, have one. The moment you leave an ideology you dont get free from it, you just jump into another, which makes ideology something neither bad nor good in esence.
1.) asides, the concept of 'religion' does not exist in a lot of languages and I would argue, that even in Europe it changed radically after the Reformation and the Confessional Wars. the most common example you'll hear is japanese where there are separate terms which would describe this one concept (shukyo = confession as an act, bunka = custom, culture etc.). 2.) a lot of nowadays abstract terms have religious roots, f. e. a) theory [not from theos], but from theorein 'watching', the title theoros 'representative watcher of religous festivities'; b) japanese sign for law 則 [nori] derives from the verb noru, in the oldest attests translated as 'being possessed, let a kami speak through oneself' 3.) agree with diego, that the word 'religion' like 'ideology' is most commonly used as a vapid counter-concept to one's own thinking (which is obviously never ideological or religious). -
This was awesome! Thnx guys!
Come back it was amazing
Aqui apoyando al pinchi Diego, aun que deporsi no le entiendo en español aqui valio cheetos
I never imagined to see you guys on camera, that's cool you invited Diego, this kind of exchanges could be very interesting for our communities
very good to bring Diego into your Podcast !!
Felicidades Diego @Diego Ruzzarin sigue creciendo como lo estas haciendo, gracias por escoger a Mexico como tu segundo pais.
Muy padre saludos desde México
The labour that brings you to my screen is verry much alienated. Just because you think you're monetising you time directly doesn't solve this. What about all of the production of the goods that your content is viewed through or the distribution of those goods or even the computers that you are using and so on?
"Dialecticism". The apotheosis of empty nerve...
"You guys are fucking awesome, beyond comprehension." - Diego Ruzzarin
Really weird to see some of the faces that go with the voices I’ve heard so many times
If religion is a particular system of faith and worship then one could say that capitalism (which subsumes everything in the modern world) is by far the most powerful and predominate religion that has ever existed. Our faith in it as an economic system and our worship of the dollar (globally) is primary in our current modern landscape where economic survival is everything and our lives our almost entirely shaped around it. All else including traditional religion is absolutely secondary to the demands of labor and consumerism under capitalism. Thoughts?
Hmmm, I can't speak for other civilizations, but in China, as far as I concretely remember, the word for religion is the same at least since Tang Dynasty. It's also an indigenous word.
But in some literatures from the east Zhou Dynasty, I remember seeing the mentioning of ceremonies about supernaturals without using the word "教" for religion. So maybe that's what Diego was talking about.
nice
Beautiful conversation! Will be back for seconds I'm sure
Mind blowing 🤯
Is it possible to demystify the process of production for individuals within capitalism? I think that labour will remain alienated pending some huge calamity. Though I do remember realising at some point whilst growing up that there were only a certain number of cars or of any commodity. It was a moment that I actually connected commodity to a concrete thought about production rather than just fetishising. Which I went back to doing within moments.
@1:13:30 Pills: "A plant needs atmosphere to grow." But the atmosphere is generated by plants. Let's see if I'm getting the gist of the materialist arguments. Materialist conditions somehow generate ideologies, which in turn result in changes to material conditions. This process is rhizomatic, in the sense of not being wholly predetermined - there are accidents that represent a kind of freedom in the "system". Ideologies determine in large measure, but again not wholly, the behaviors of humans and their part in changing the material conditions. Humans are for the most part deluded, especially by ideology, into believing that they have freedom (and knowledge how) to change the conditions, when in fact their actions are largely automatic and influenced by ideology. I didn't understand how rationality in the system itself must lead to the "tipping points" needed for change. Is the claim that material conditions are internally rational? Following "laws" perhaps? It seems to me that the metaphysical question of the bootstrapping or origin of material conditions (prior to ideologies) is being elided here. Which came first, plants or atmosphere? seems unanswerable.
The atmosphere formed mainly from gases that came from volcanoes. Gases like hydrogen sulfide, methane, and a shit ton of carbon dioxide. Then the earth's surface cooled enough for water to collect (much of the CO2 dissolved into the oceans) and then eventually the conditions were such that cyanobacteria could exist and evolve and further alter the earth's atmosphere through metabolic processes that put a lot more oxygen into the atmosphere and that made it possible for animals and plants to evolve. It's some what of a symbiotic process I suppose, but the initial conditions were at some point just right for bacteria to exist and that really got us going. One could actually argue that religion (going back to tribal paganism that predates recorded history) represents an analogous-in this case memetic or ideological-evolution that has made it possible for humans to categorize the world and to communicate through language and think and create culture (from the word cult), and much like the material world, our conceptual world is undergirded by language which is also bounded, like the material world is by the laws of physics.
Just thinking out loud if you will-your comment got me thinking haha! 😄
@@TylerRein Well, that's quite a compressed account.
@@pugix haha yes quite so! Not trying to drone on in the comment section ya know?! Haha
Jesus fuck this broke my brain
Thought of this quote when you guys were talking about meaning, "For all anyone knows nothing is. Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long as it is honored. One acts on assumptions. What do you assume?" Tom Stoppard
Seth Rogan's long lost twin separated at birth! We found him!
Great podcast!
Diego’s monologue on religion is eye opening
Great conversation!
Religion = Religare = keep together or tie up it together. It is a latin concept, so probably it comes with the latin empire and the relationship of the empire with different cultures and believes (none even the Greeks had a specific name for this).The idea of religion is to keep the community together. And everything in the Bible/holy book, even the idea of the Church/Holy home is to keep the the community under the same believes, law, traditions, values, etc. and a place and a hierarchy to keep, gather, share, be, so on. A religion can be polytheist or monotheist if keep the community together. Different religions keep together different communities. Thats the idea of the concept "religion", so, it is independent of the idea of god, or the kind of god, or the number of gods it has. We can think about this concept, back to the time it was generated (maybe 1st century or earlier), as the nowadays concept of culture, that helps us to discriminate or classify communities.
I can add, the problem of religions to be together nowadays is different of the reasons that keep them fighting before. Nowadays, if you live in a place where there are religions with different believes or traditions: For example, a religion against to kill together with another one that kills living beings in rituals... the inner conflict and fear will be for sure, because the community with blood rituals will look for living beings to kill in the other community (it is obvious they will not kill their own people if they can kill people from other community). Same problem with religions that enhance the act of die fighting for something, so on. Furthermore, a person without religion who believes in cannibalism or who knows what with people who has not the same believes (and doesnt know that person with those believes lives among them). Be different but same makes predictions about behaviour of the other more difficult. And uncertainly makes things more stressing.
In Asia (China, Japan, India), sure they use "teaching", since the idea there is that you stay together under a teaching that you believe or think reasonable or convenient for you. There the figure of the monk is very important since they can live (be a pattern for the other to follow) or tell to the illiterate what the text says, so for the people to understand and collect Karma or whatever to be able to read and be a monk in another life. A teaching is "a road" in life to a death for another life (next level) or the liberation (or integration in nature). The relationship of the oriental cultures with this kind of things is not as a "big community" (with all the humans beings integrated or able to be living the religion), thats why the idea of reliigare is not useful or aplicable. The "teachings" tells to each social strata or sexual being what they must do in the life they have to "step up" in the next life. What is to say: the teachings keep each one it its place, not together at all. Probably this kind of rigid hierarchy relationship with gods and believes in the Mediterranean civilisations was similar before Christianity (or before imperian Roman law and texts), since only the pharaon or religious leader or chaman or alike had contact with gods, and the leader who has no direct contact with god/s will have personal relationship with the one who has. From the top of this hierarchy to the bottom the power or relation with gods will go down to nothing (slaves or people captured from another place).
So, when you talk about God in this chat, you are talking about the "social-family god" generated after the concept of "religare", a god of the community (a god-father everybody can have relationship with as brothers and sisters, or subjective perception about or even reject him and become himself a god). You are not talking about the god of the elite that keep/change a king on the throne (Lets remember that even nowadays, any king is king because a gods will) and ask for submission to that king to the rest of the people (a god-power giver to one or very few human beings who has no idea and dont mind about your existence, since you are useful in life or death only if you obey, keep on or give your life for the king/queen/pope he wants). If you understand those modern or christian text about religion or god as a dialogue or relationship with the father, the understanding of what is going on there is far more easy.
Wow. So much hot air. “The word Religion already implies ideology”? What? The word religion means to re-bind, now that is to re-connect, to re-member. So come on, it implies integration. In integration of what? Maybe if you stop chattering you’d experience It and you would feel the need to say so much.
I get what you're saying but, I think they see it the way zizek does, and I agree, because of the very definition of ideology.
We all, as humans, have one. The moment you leave an ideology you dont get free from it, you just jump into another, which makes ideology something neither bad nor good in esence.
You need to read more about Lacanian psychoanalysis.
1.) asides, the concept of 'religion' does not exist in a lot of languages and I would argue, that even in Europe it changed radically after the Reformation and the Confessional Wars. the most common example you'll hear is japanese where there are separate terms which would describe this one concept (shukyo = confession as an act, bunka = custom, culture etc.). 2.) a lot of nowadays abstract terms have religious roots, f. e. a) theory [not from theos], but from theorein 'watching', the title theoros 'representative watcher of religous festivities'; b) japanese sign for law 則 [nori] derives from the verb noru, in the oldest attests translated as 'being possessed, let a kami speak through oneself' 3.) agree with diego, that the word 'religion' like 'ideology' is most commonly used as a vapid counter-concept to one's own thinking (which is obviously never ideological or religious). -
Are you purposely being obtuse?