Absence of Spirituality

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

(if anything, I am most satisfied with MDAO's formulation put forth in a prior thread)

Coming from someone who is a league above me in the art of philosophy, I take this as a great compliment.

I'll reiterate it, for everyone's sake: Spirituality is openness to the possibility that you living your life right here right now is part of some greater plan, laid out by some force or being much greater than you.

I like this definition, which is my own wording but is hardly unique to me, because it sets spirituality completely apart from science. Nothing that science discovers will either rule in or rule out the possibility that you being right here right now is not a random accident. This definition also establishes spirituality as a separate enterprise from philosophy. Philosophical inquiry can elucidate aspects of the human condition regardless of whether we're subjected to it right now for some external reason. I don't have a problem with anyone who's just not spiritual, who is simply not intrigued by the possibility to a higher purpose to their sentient existence. It's certainly not everyone's cup of joe. But I do have a problem with people insisting to me I ought not to be spiritual, and that science (and/or philosophy) have soundly discredited spirituality in all its forms once and for all.

I've gone through various phases when it comes to spiritual matters. It may be hard for a lot of regulars who know me here to believe, but I read the entire American Atheists homepage when I was 18, and tried the whole scoffing at spirituality thing for years. I was not a very spiritual person in my early days here at BL.

My experiences with drugs have certainly had an influence on how I've approached spiritual (and philosophical) matters, but they've never played a central role in my beliefs, or certainly not a more influential role than any other non-drug life experiences I've had. If anything, drugs (especially dissociatives) have opened me up to the possibility of entirely different modes of sentient existence than I ever could have imagined, and this has broadened the range of spiritual scenarios I'd be willing to consider.

I definitely do not relate to the seeker who uses drugs and comes out of it all stripped of all of their faith, which seems to be a fairly common species around this website. FWIW, Kabbalah teachers warn that one of the dangers of having a mystical experience without the life experience to be able to properly integrate it is to become a nihilist and essentially give up on life.

I have come to the conclusion that some sort of faith that my life is part of a greater plan is indispensable for me. If someone could show me evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that me being right here right now was a random and pointless accident never to be repeated, I'd be ready to die tomorrow. If anyone else finds it empowering or uplifting to believe that their life has no inherent meaning or purpose, I don't begrudge you that, and am proud of you. Personally, I don't see it, and probably never will. To me, sentient existence is pretty damn painful, and if it's all for nothing, I want out, now. Unbelievers are fond of saying people are spiritual because they're afraid to die. That doesn't ring true to my experience -- my spirituality is much more motivated by ambivalence about living than about dying.

Drugs have certainly played some role in my realization of what I just laid out in the last paragraph. That said, I think I would have eventually come to the same conclusion had I never chemically bent my consciousness.

 

[Lab-Test Monkey]

I'll reiterate it, for everyone's sake: Spirituality is openness to the possibility that you living your life right here right now is part of some greater plan, laid out by some force or being much greater than you.

I think spirituality is more about seeking understanding and accepting that complete understanding is not attainable, reflecting on self, physical reality and universal whole. It is our nature as self aware beings to attribute great importance to our lives, perhaps it could be considered vainglorious at times.

Consider that as we die we cannot access any memories from the decaying brain, our sense of self is forever lost and we are recycled back into the universe.

Consider that the universe will ultimately entropy and die (the human race will likely have died out before this happens) and that all physical record of the universe will be forever lost.

The totality of the universe is not likely to be self aware and even less likely to care about a miniscule component of itself (aka you or me).

Of course life is meaningful, we are aware that we exist, we cannot completely hide this perception as it is a fundamental core if our existence. A virus or tree will have a meaningful live insomuch that they can perceive the world in their own fashion.

 

[ebola?]

I'll reiterate it, for everyone's sake: Spirituality is openness to the possibility that you living your life right here right now is part of some greater plan, laid out by some force or being much greater than you.

Mmmm....I want to say, though, that you gave a more general definition earlier...some of the terminology you use here involves more personification than I'm comfortable with. What is it for there to be a "plan"? I will concede that there is some wider context which conditions the emergence of consciousnesses within dynamics of the universe as it unfolds through time (and indeed, a context which lies beyond temporality, and beyond the distinction between caprice and order), but does this wider context constitute a "plan"? Could the conditions of possibility for consciousness (and indeed being) constitute a consciousness? It seems that agency and consciousness as we know them depend on the limitations of the scope of beings bound within something larger.

I'm wondering if mysticism, taken seriously, puts in question the viability of what we usually ascribe to the spiritual.

Is spirituality something more than the mere rejection of immediate appearances as empirically exhaustive?

The totality of the universe is not likely to be self aware and even less likely to care about a miniscule component of itself (aka you or me).

But we are structured through the sum conditions of the universe, and as such, emerge as the universe taking a partial look at itself.

ebola

 

[Lab-Test Monkey]

I'm wondering if mysticism, taken seriously, puts in question the viability of what we usually ascribe to the spiritual.

Is spirituality something more than the mere rejection of immediate appearances as empirically exhaustive?
ebola

Yes it's very confusing especially with continual changes of definition over time per( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism), below is an excerpt from the spirituality entry:

--------------------
Classical and medieaval meaning:

Words translatable as 'spirituality' first began to arise in the 5th century and only entered common use toward the end of the Middle Ages.[10]

The term "spirituality" is derived from the Latin spiritualitas and the Biblical "roeach/pneuma". It means to be put in motion, to be a living person, and being driven. In a Bibilical context it means being animated by God.[11] Spirituality means to be driven by the Holy Spirit, as opposed to a life which rejects this influence.[12]

In the 11th century this meaning changes. Spirituality denotes then the mental aspect of life, as opposed to the material and sensual aspects of life. Spirituality represents "the ecclesiastical sphere of light against the dark world of matery".[13][note 4]

In the 13th century "spirituality" acquired a social and psychological meaning. Socially it denoted the territory of the clergy: "The ecclesiastical against the temporary possessions, the ecclesiastical against the secular authority, the clerical class against the secular class"[14][note 5] Psychologically it denoted the realm of the inner life: "The purity of motives, affections, intentions, inner dispositions, the psychology of the spiritual life, the analysis of the feelings".[15][note 6]
Early-modern meaning

In the 17th and 18th century a distinction was being made between higher and lower forms of spirituality:

A spiritual man is one who is Christian 'more abundantly and deeper than others'.[15][note 7]

But the word was also associated with mysticism and quietism, and acquired a negative meaning.
Modern spirituality

The spread of the ideas of modernity began to diminish the role of religion in society and in popular thought.[citation needed] Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882) was a pioneer of the idea of spirituality as a distinct field.[16]

Important early 20th century western writers who studied the phenomenon of spirituality, and their works, include William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), and Rudolph Otto, especially The Idea of the Holy (1917).[citation needed]

Due to the colonisation of Asia by the western world, since the 19th century an exchange of ideas has been taking place between the western world and Asia, which also influenced western religiosity.[17] A major influence on modern spirituality was the Theosophical Society, which searched for 'secret teachings' in Asian religions.[17] It has been influential on modernist streams in several Asian religions, notably Hindu reform movements, the revival of Theravada Buddhism, and Buddhist modernism, which have taken over modern western notions and integrated them in their religious concepts.[17] The influence of Asian traditions on western modern spirituality was also furthered by the Perennial Philosophy, and the growing wellfare, education and mass travel after World war Two.

After the Second World War spirituality and religion became disconnected.[15] A new discourse developed, in which (humanistic) psychology, mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions are being blended, to reach the true self by self-disclosure, free expression and meditation.[6]

The distinction between the spiritual and the religious became more common in the popular mind during the late 20th century with the rise of secularism and the advent of the New Age movement. Authors such as Chris Griscom and Shirley MacLaine explored it in numerous ways in their books. Paul Heelas noted the development within New Age circles of what he called "seminar spirituality":[18] structured offerings complementing consumer choice with spiritual options.

Among other factors, declining membership of organized religions and the growth of secularism in the western world have given rise to this broader view of spirituality.[19] The term "spiritual" is now frequently used in contexts in which the term "religious" was formerly employed.[20]

-------------------

I think spirituality may be classed as something more than the mere rejection of immediate appearances as empirically exhaustive, it's more about becoming attuned to the fact that your mind and all minds + your body and all other body's/elements in physical reality are temporary parts of the universe which will in time be changed and recycled and possible completely destroyed after a long period of time. (note that current science does not necessarily disagree with any of this

The portions I bolded above have a common theme of self development which prevalent in the new spirituality movement and the practices such as meditation and fasting championed in spirituality are also used to obtain mystic experiences in religions.

Both mysticism(religions?) and spirituality concentrate on love and compassion as the primary goal from the vague accepted morals/ethics of larger society but I suppose love/compassion can even be seen as necessary from an emotionless viewpoint focusing on pure survival chance of the most individuals and the human race as a whole.

Is it morally wrong for a fox to eat a rabbit,i.e does it show lack of love or compassion?

If it is, is the lack of love or compassion for the fox, rabbit or both?

I think that spirituality is unique to everyone and that you can be very spiritual, very nihilist(should the intrinsic value of existential nihilism be "living aka just being" rather than nothing. Not living means non existence), for whilst we are certainly insignificant in comparison to the total universe over it's lifespan we have immeasurable significance in the spaces we occupy looking at these spaces through the lens of existence) and very happy with your given lot at the same time. The only moral obligations that exist are given by yourself through your own creation or the creations of others that you adopt as your own.

But we are structured through the sum conditions of the universe, and as such, emerge as the universe taking a partial look at itself.
ebola

Individual human cells are structured through the sum conditions of an individual but they don't all report what they perceive directly back to the brain. That's probably a crap metaphor and irrelevant but in any case perhaps we do transmit information to the universe in ways as yet undiscovered by science, it would be interesting if something ever was detected(or if we can even detect a transmission or observation from some other wrinkle the universe per the limitations you mentioned above).

 

[ebola?]

Individual human cells are structured through the sum conditions of an individual but they don't all report what they perceive directly back to the brain. That's probably a crap metaphor and irrelevant but in any case perhaps we do transmit information to the universe in ways as yet undiscovered by science, it would be interesting if something ever was detected(or if we can even detect a transmission or observation from some other wrinkle the universe per the limitations you mentioned above).

I think a more apt analogy is the process through which the body (including the brain and mind) and the environment in which it inheres condition how the brain perceives this processes, but the mind (or mind/brain, if you REALLY need to say so ) construes itself as a partial consciousness of this process (of course with various distortions and lacking completeness).

Well, physically, it turns out that the universe at large constitutes this 'environment', including bodies and minds within it.

ebola

 

[Thanatos]

Yeah, I've actually started to attempt to start living a 'cleaner' life, diet exercise, and I'm try to moderatate my addiction. Maybe spirit is just another term for what I already practice, humanism and pantheism. Could spirit possibly just be analogous to the 'fire' of life? I've been thinking lately, and I think that science may in fact be my religion/belief system. I think spirituality is such an open ended term, and over used at that.

Contemplating the vastness of the cosmos and the unending search for knowledge may be my for spirituality, and world view. Could it be that certain individuals are more prone to the metaphysical/mystical path, and I don't posses the ability to even deeply contemplate and subscribe to such ideas and practice?

After a year of deep contemplation and self exploration my opinion of empirical science being the closest thing the world has to offer has become much more deep rooted and profound. I occasionally meditate, but with the zen mentality of letting things come and go without any significant attachment to the ideas or feelings. I tend to believe I've just become less naive, and in a sense even more jaded by the world.

 

[rickolasnice]

Rangrz hasn't been around for a long time man

I have never believed in the spirit realm, the immaterial, unmeasurable realm of consciousness being something other than a manifestation of the brain, etc..

S'all good.

The real world is amazing enough without the need for it.. Although that's not to say some aspects of "spirituality" and the "metaphysical" world have been overlooked and brushed aside as pseudoscience. Meditation is often lumped into the spirituality side of things even though there are many benefits to it, with measurable outcomes and measurable pathways of getting there

 

[Foreigner]

^ I really enjoy Buddhism because it's basically an ancient form of advanced psychology. If you ignore its answers for "why" things happen and just focus on the "how" of having a better mind, I find it much more useful than modern psychology.

I watched a really cool talk on Youtube recently that someone like you would appreciate Rick. Watch the first 15 minutes and I guarantee you'll be hooked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nasIq4E9nNg&feature=youtu.be

As for a "need" for spirituality, not sure I relate to that either. I find it hard to relate to people who didn't grow up having the things flown in my face that I did, which formed the basis of my reality as I understand and perceive it. There was no need for anything, there were just experiences. I don't make a distinction between the metaphysical world and any other world. It's all one world to me, which is why I sometimes resent people making assumptions about my experiences and trying to qualify them when they weren't even there.

 

[rickolasnice]

Watching video now

 

[Dtergent]

hai entheo

My "spiritual" situation is I never was able to relate to any particular religion. Not because of their limitations, but because the parables/stories/categorizations within them never suited my context or brought clarity to the matter, which is understandable when trying to describe the indescribable, qualitative anchor of spirituality.

I do pick up smatterings from here and there, I like the "non-technical" side of Vedic and Buddhist teachings. Contemporary authors on religion are also helpful, but can fall off the new-agey side. They do well to synthesize things though.

I remember reading an article (I think it was Ken Wilber and some other guy, the publisher of Enlightenment magazine, not sure) that spoke about "evolutionary spirituality" or something like that. In which actually, the drive of humans for "life-encouraging" behavior (not just life-preserving) on a species level is a function of time and evolution. So the "force" (poor word, mine) of evolution is actually similar to the "spirit" that moves creatures. Maybe it can be explained as energy that is just being conserved and passed on without remaining dormant in nature. (Although dormancy is relative to the species that utilizes the energy).

Couple that with Otto's explanation of the numinous and that sums up my spiritual views. The qualitative feeling of bliss, is like a recalibration for people towards some form of life-encouraging behavior. Anecdotes throughout religions say that it is more easily achieved if you are a good person (free of guilt or something)-- the Vedas even incorporated "behavioral tonics" into their health modalities. Being without burden eases your way into the feeling of bliss. I would dare say that this is the foundation of every religion-- and even our addictions and forays into our minds.

It's kind of dry compared to the textured, cultural Eastern philosophies, but this approach has given me a more grounded happiness in my everyday life.