Siloism

[Alex]

Siloism

= Humanist Movement
= New Humanism
= "Universal Humanism" (the Dictionary of New Humanism has no such term)
= Universalist Humanism (has nothing to do with Universalism)

Wikipedia:
The Humanist Movement is an international volunteer organisation that promotes nonviolence and non-discrimination. It is not an institution. It takes its inspiration from the current of thought referred to as New or Universal Humanism that has been developed since 1969 by its founder Mario Rodríguez Cobos, pen name: Silo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Movement

The Dictionary of New Humanism is their official document.  The following selected entries can cast some light on their positions:

ANTHROPOCENTRIC HUMANISM
A position based on the centrality of the human being and generally excluding any theistic proposal. Additionally, a.h. rejects the domination of one human being by another, displacing action towards the control of nature, defined as the medium over which humanity should exert unrestricted power. There are differences with New Humanism in that the latter starts with the centrality of the human being but does not reject theistic positions. Moreover, N.H. considers nature not as a passive medium but as an active force operating in interaction with the human phenomenon. Consequently, the impulse toward individual and social improvement must bear in mind the human impact on nature, something that imposes limitations that are not only moral but must be reflected in the legal system, and ecological planning.

ATHEISM
Literally, negation of divinity. Hence, rejection of religion and negation of any kind of supernatural or unknown powers. Generally, a. rejects the landscapes proposed by religions (heaven, hell, etc.) as well as the existence of psychic entities independent of the body (angels, spirits, etc.).

A. admits various beliefs concerning the origin and functioning of nature, but in all cases excludes the participation of an intelligence, reason, or logos in the development of the Universe.

There is a theoretical a., based on convictions corresponding to the state of development of science at any given moment; there is also an empirical a., which needs no theoretical development or justification. There is sincere a. and apparent a.
Over the course of human development, religion and a. have developed along parallel lines in different cultures. It is also true that devotees of each of these positions have been subjected to persecution and massacres by those of the other faction.

As with any other faith, a. must be protected, as must the right to publicize and teach it without subjecting it to any comprehensively applicable requirement for uniformity.

Those who are partisans of N.H. are well-disposed to maintaining an amicable dialogue with adherents of the many forms of a., as well as those of confessions and organizations of religious inspiration, whether social institutions, political parties, unions, etc., with the aim of acting in broad solidarity and cooperation on behalf of the human being and of social progress, freedom, and peace.

BELIEF
A structure of pre-predicative ideation upon which other apparently “rational” structures are erected. B. determines the field or perspective chosen, from which an idea or a system of ideas is developed. In the case of dialogue, even the most rational, the parties take for granted certain undemonstrated propositions, and make use of them without examination. We call such assumptions “pre-dialogal.” Beliefs determine practices and customs as well as the organization of language, or the illusion of a world that is accepted as “real” but is observed from the limited parameters determined by a particular historical perspective. Any such perspective typically tends to exclude others.

As the historical “level” of the generations (*) c
hanges, so does the system of beliefs, which also involves a change in the perspective, the “point from which” one is able or willing to observe the world (personal, social, scientific, historical, etc.). This change of perspective is what allows the emergence of new ideas. These new ideas take root in the new historical level, and copresently establish new pre-predicates, new propositions that then become incontestable and in turn give rise to new beliefs. As an example we can consider a behavior common in the West until only recently: the affirmation that certain knowledge or information was “scientific” was all that was required to defend a given position and to discredit an opposing one as “unscientific” (*science). Several generations remained mired in this dispute, until the b. on which their scientistic artifices were based itself became subject to debate. When it came to be understood that every scientific theory was, at bottom, a construction of approximation to reality and not reality itself, this rigidly scientistic perspective began to change. However, this change in turn opened the way for the emergence of neo-irrationalist currents of thought.
 
FAITH
(From L. fides, faith). A belief (*) that is not based on rational argument. Acceptance of or agreement with words or statements based on the authority or reputation of their source; confidence, assurance that a thing is true. F. is a characteristic of individual and social consciousness.

The psychological state of a subject, expressed in ideas and images, that serves as motivation and orientation in practical activity is also regarded as f.

Different theories of f. can be identified: emotional (which interpret f. as an emotion), sensual-intellectual (f. as a phenomenon of the intellect), and voluntarist (f. as an attribute of the will). Religious f. is a special sphere of f.

N.H. distinguishes between fanatical f. (which is expressed destructively), naive f. (which can endanger a person’s vital interests), and f. that serves to open the future and advance constructive goals in life.

HUMANISM
1) Practice and/or theory of New Humanism (*). 2) Every position that supports the values defined by the humanist attitude (*). 3) Any activity that is in practice committed to the values defined by the humanist attitude. 4) Any doctrine that proclaims the solidarity and freedom of choice of the human being can be designated “a” h.

HUMANIST ATTITUDE
The h.a. existed long before words such as “humanism,” “humanist,” and others like them had been coined. The following positions are common to humanists of all cultures: 1) placement of the human being as the central value and concern; 2) affirmation of the equality of all human beings; 3) recognition of personal and cultural diversity; 4)  a tendency to develop knowledge beyond conventional wisdom or that imposed as absolute truth; 5) affirmation of the freedom of ideas and beliefs; and 6) repudiation of violence.

Beyond any theoretical definition, the h.a. can be understood as a “sensibility,” a way of approaching the human world in which the intentionality and freedom of others are acknowledged and in which one assumes a commitment to non-violent struggle against discrimination and violence (*humanist moment).

NEW HUMANISM
The representatives of this movement have a clearly defined position in relation to the current historical moment .  For them it is indispensable to construct a humanism that will contribute to the improvement of life, that will confront discrimination, fanaticism, exploitation, and violence.  In a world that is rapidly becoming globalized and showing signs of intensifying collisions between cultures, ethnic groups, and regions, participants in N.H. propose a universal humanism (*) that is both plural and convergent; in a world in which countries, institutions, and human relations are becoming destructured, fragmented. They work for a humanism capable of rebuilding social forces; in a world in which the meaning and direction of life have been lost, they emphasize the need for a humanism capable of creating a new atmosphere of reflection, in which the personal will no longer be irrevocably opposed to the social nor the social opposed to the personal.  These exponents, interpreters, and militants encourage a creative humanism, not a repetitive humanism; a humanism that, aware of the paradoxes of the times, aspires to resolve them.

N.H. favors the modification of the scheme or structure of power for the purpose of transforming the present social structure, which is rapidly becoming a closed system (*Planetarization) in which the practical attitudes and theoretical “values” of anti-humanism (*) increasingly predominate.



Alex's comment: Siloism is not mainstream humanism.