-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
At which stage of a person's life does (the desire for) religion/spirituality make...
- Thread starter Psyduck
- Start date
azzazza !?
Bluelighter
it never really does, you just get better at expressing and/or sharing it with others. the sharper your pencil, the more generalized/abstract it becomes, therefor, the more others can derive meaning from it. in its heart, it always remains personal, and as long as your not dead, the journey continues, and you learn new ways to express yourself 
the spiritual truth is in each and every one of us, and it is as perfect as it is unspeakable. as they say, everyone is a little bit of a philosopher, if only to himself. what truly matters, is how you share that spark with others. and this is again, always already unique, and therefor, beautiful at its heart. but like anything is life, the more time you spend on perfecting something, the more beautiful it may become, but as a quantity, not a quality
but antropologically speaking, tho i have no reference but myself and my limited observation, it seems to come when puberty is psychologically completed and released. from that moment on, it seems as if there comes a desire to reconnect with the wonder of ones childhood. the word religion has a dual latin root, it may come from 'religare' ('to reconnect') or from 'religere' ('to reread'). both can be put in the context of reconnecting/rereading ones childhood (coming to terms with it on an ever more abstract plane. in other words, because of the loss of it, an always recurring reiteration is made to it, though as it is lost to direct experience, this will be done in ever increasing layers of representation, always reframing it in light of the current direct experience (the here and now). hm. i just noticed i produced a rather Nietschian interpretation of religion there without realizing it till just now. odd
the spiritual truth is in each and every one of us, and it is as perfect as it is unspeakable. as they say, everyone is a little bit of a philosopher, if only to himself. what truly matters, is how you share that spark with others. and this is again, always already unique, and therefor, beautiful at its heart. but like anything is life, the more time you spend on perfecting something, the more beautiful it may become, but as a quantity, not a quality
but antropologically speaking, tho i have no reference but myself and my limited observation, it seems to come when puberty is psychologically completed and released. from that moment on, it seems as if there comes a desire to reconnect with the wonder of ones childhood. the word religion has a dual latin root, it may come from 'religare' ('to reconnect') or from 'religere' ('to reread'). both can be put in the context of reconnecting/rereading ones childhood (coming to terms with it on an ever more abstract plane. in other words, because of the loss of it, an always recurring reiteration is made to it, though as it is lost to direct experience, this will be done in ever increasing layers of representation, always reframing it in light of the current direct experience (the here and now). hm. i just noticed i produced a rather Nietschian interpretation of religion there without realizing it till just now. odd
Foreigner
Bluelighter
There's no stage. I've felt spiritually inclined my entire life, and yet I am still left with the "mystery" of what this is that we are living.
If anything, there are two stages: being dissatisfied with not knowing the answers, and being satisfied with only having questions.
If anything, there are two stages: being dissatisfied with not knowing the answers, and being satisfied with only having questions.
PatDee
Greenlighter
as you mature (spiritually) through many incarnations one will eventually become aware of their source. It's a bit more supple than say reaching puberty, where between the ages of say 13 & 16 stuff happens and there's no denying it.
or you could have an epiphany or a kundalini experience and "WHAMBO" you'll know.
or you could have an epiphany or a kundalini experience and "WHAMBO" you'll know.
azzazza !?
Bluelighter
hm well i was mainly taking about understanding philosophy/religion. though i can say that in hindsight there were many 'signs' of a spiritual inclination in my adolescence and even childhood, it remained a vague inclination which expressed itself in an undefined or fantastical way. for instance, we had a few hours of religious education in school, taught by a catholic monk who was at least somewhat versed in philosophy as well. while i remember these lessons as very relaxed and generally nice, i cannot say something of that time in terms of philosophy or religion ever stuck. there were no 'a-ha erlebnisse', no internal connections, not anything really, intellectually speaking. i cannot identify a single concept that i'd have learned in those lessons. all i remember is this relaxed monk teaching well.. relaxed stuff. and watching koyaanisqatsi. and that we had to write down a lot of text.
actual philosophical understanding came at university when studying psychology. i moved over to the philosophy department because of said discovery. religious understanding came about 2 years in the wake of philosophical understanding, through being able to leave the practical-empirical mindset at increasingly further distances, whilst still retaining it. (if you want to bring religious experience back to intellectual understanding, don't lose track of the ground you took off from)
so yes, the desire may be there earlier, but this a rather unconscious, or rather, an emerging desire towards adulthood. during adolescence, it seems as if its a desire that does not yet find a proper release. it appears as not sharply delineated, still seeking to connect back to something within itself. as if it cannot yet find (self-)reflection. i noted an interesting observation that i should perhaps further develop, being that this spiritual desire seems to be running parallel, or at least shows interesting similarities, to the development of libido towards an adult sexuality in psychoanalysis.
actual philosophical understanding came at university when studying psychology. i moved over to the philosophy department because of said discovery. religious understanding came about 2 years in the wake of philosophical understanding, through being able to leave the practical-empirical mindset at increasingly further distances, whilst still retaining it. (if you want to bring religious experience back to intellectual understanding, don't lose track of the ground you took off from
)so yes, the desire may be there earlier, but this a rather unconscious, or rather, an emerging desire towards adulthood. during adolescence, it seems as if its a desire that does not yet find a proper release. it appears as not sharply delineated, still seeking to connect back to something within itself. as if it cannot yet find (self-)reflection. i noted an interesting observation that i should perhaps further develop, being that this spiritual desire seems to be running parallel, or at least shows interesting similarities, to the development of libido towards an adult sexuality in psychoanalysis.
Last edited:
fridgebuzz
Bluelighter
Hello Psyduck,
Straight from my notes on the day of the existentialism lecture:
iv stages of life
---A. Aesthetic - younger ideas
------1. tent to act on whims and lets the world take it where it may
------2. no purpose or goal beyond what's immediate
---B. Ethical
------1. recognizes consequences of their actions - reflective
------2. asks how their behavior affects others/themselves
---C. Religious - leap of faith
------1. there is no proof of God
------2. no objective truth for a God
------3. only by taking a leap of faith can i move from one way of thinking to another
------4. only you can make make the choice to take the leap of faith, religion is a personal choice
---D. Artists dip into aesthetic lives sometimes
------1. everyone lives in the moment momentarily or else we'd go crazy, but dwelling there limits you
It's something. Probably nothing. Good night.
Straight from my notes on the day of the existentialism lecture:
iv stages of life
---A. Aesthetic - younger ideas
------1. tent to act on whims and lets the world take it where it may
------2. no purpose or goal beyond what's immediate
---B. Ethical
------1. recognizes consequences of their actions - reflective
------2. asks how their behavior affects others/themselves
---C. Religious - leap of faith
------1. there is no proof of God
------2. no objective truth for a God
------3. only by taking a leap of faith can i move from one way of thinking to another
------4. only you can make make the choice to take the leap of faith, religion is a personal choice
---D. Artists dip into aesthetic lives sometimes
------1. everyone lives in the moment momentarily or else we'd go crazy, but dwelling there limits you
It's something. Probably nothing. Good night.
panic in paradise
Bluelighter
hm well i was mainly taking about understanding philosophy/religion. though i can say that in hindsight there were many 'signs' of a spiritual inclination in my adolescence and even childhood, it remained a vague inclination which expressed itself in an undefined or fantastical way. for instance, we had a few hours of religious education in school, taught by a catholic monk who was at least somewhat versed in philosophy as well. while i remember these lessons as very relaxed and generally nice, i cannot say something of that time in terms of philosophy or religion ever stuck. there were no 'a-ha erlebnisse', no internal connections, not anything really, intellectually speaking. i cannot identify a single concept that i'd have learned in those lessons. all i remember is this relaxed monk teaching well.. relaxed stuff. and watching koyaanisqatsi. and that we had to write down a lot of text.
actual philosophical understanding came at university when studying psychology. i moved over to the philosophy department because of said discovery. religious understanding came about 2 years in the wake of philosophical understanding, through being able to leave the practical-empirical mindset at increasingly further distances, whilst still retaining it. (if you want to bring religious experience back to intellectual understanding, don't lose track of the ground you took off from
so yes, the desire may be there earlier, but this a rather unconscious, or rather, an emerging desire towards adulthood. during adolescence, it seems as if its a desire that does not yet find a proper release. it appears as not sharply delineated, still seeking to connect back to something within itself. as if it cannot yet find (self-)reflection. i noted an interesting observation that i should perhaps further develop, being that this spiritual desire seems to be running parallel, or at least shows interesting similarities, to the development of libido towards an adult sexuality in psychoanalysis.
When did psychology not become faith and psychiatry become assurance?
And the chinese never invented a science system, this is very telling, not in a sense that science is not needed,
and not to say science took the place of spirituality...but rather what could exist if science did not, or what other systems of fact could be adopted?
Perhaps when you start to realize how little you know, and upon this acceptance more insight into the deeper meanings and substance of life is gleemed.
~
Sorry, doesn't look like it maybe but I appreciate your post, I feel that understanding is important too.
Last edited:
azzazza !?
Bluelighter
oh i wasn't really referring to science per se, just integration in its broadest sense. well, as you say science is also a form of integrating a belief in the form of hypothesis and experiment, but they generally tend to stay very close to the ground. faith and spirituality also have a 'system', though more shrouded in symbolism and closer the associative undercurrent. looser and generally much more difficult to express/convey precisely. if i had to put a quick label on my personal point of view regarding integration of spirituality, i'd go with William James pragmatism, more or less. its about finding a suitable balance between one's most intimate individuality and the common ground where one expresses and shares oneself. though its natural to swing more to one side or the other over the course of a lifetime, of course. but even a true mystic needs his return to the world to keep him from insanity. to put it in another saying: don't stare into the light for too long or it will burn.
what i ment with 'understanding' is also broad, in the sense of making a sort of 'internal connection'. you know, that sense that you suddenly see what something is about. this can very well be in a scientific sense too, but i intended the sense of the more general 'a-ha erlebnis', you know, that moment when you suddenly 'get' something, be that religious, symbolic, or scientific. and i noticed that for religion and philosophy, that generally tends to come a little later then for empirical knowledge. A professor of mine once said "a scientist is, generally speaking, at his best at around his 23 to 30 when it comes to forming his greatest ideas, while a philosopher tends to reach his height at around 40"
what i ment with 'understanding' is also broad, in the sense of making a sort of 'internal connection'. you know, that sense that you suddenly see what something is about. this can very well be in a scientific sense too, but i intended the sense of the more general 'a-ha erlebnis', you know, that moment when you suddenly 'get' something, be that religious, symbolic, or scientific. and i noticed that for religion and philosophy, that generally tends to come a little later then for empirical knowledge. A professor of mine once said "a scientist is, generally speaking, at his best at around his 23 to 30 when it comes to forming his greatest ideas, while a philosopher tends to reach his height at around 40"
Last edited:
panic in paradise
Bluelighter
I'm sorry that seems directed at you, only meant to high light the bolded portion because that is important...and add my own .o2.
As far as remaining open and aware.
"you" is maybe not the best choice of words
lol
As far as remaining open and aware.
"you" is maybe not the best choice of words
lol
azzazza !?
Bluelighter
hehe don't worry, i was a bit confused by it so i just cleared my point of view a bit further, just in case
panic in paradise
Bluelighter
No problem, thats understandable.
It is interesting though, the Chinese never came up with a science system, why? And yet they are known for being so inventive and contributive to other nations. I think it is because they are more practicle.
not making it easier but taking it easier, accepting of more. Then being able to appreciate the
smaller things, maybe what some feel are the larger things come to you.
It is interesting though, the Chinese never came up with a science system, why? And yet they are known for being so inventive and contributive to other nations. I think it is because they are more practicle.
not making it easier but taking it easier, accepting of more. Then being able to appreciate the
smaller things, maybe what some feel are the larger things come to you.
azzazza !?
Bluelighter
i'm probably going to derail the thread a bit with this, cause i love the subject, so my apologies in advance
a large part of that will be due to cultural background. the west is what is called a 'guilt culture', it is set on seeking a general (initially focused on moral) authority outside of itself, before which all are rendered equal, thus, as objective as possible. in various traditional philosophical debates waged in antiquity and the middle ages we can see the seeds of a shift (or rather, schism) towards an inherent natural law, where we begin to see nature as independent from us, especially in favor of the mind as the locus of our self, and our humanity (think Descartes), and from which empirical science was born.
eastern culture is typed as a 'shame culture'. little can be actually said about how that works, because as a westerner, we are bound to an extremely deeply ingrained mode of thinking that goes back at least as far as the Greeks. this background 'works in our back', it unconsciously forms and structures our thoughts and perception before we are actually conscious of that, it is passed over and honed from generation to generation through how we are raised and educated. its the mother of all metaprogramming. as such, we can never see eastern culture the way an easterner does, we will always see it through a westerners eyes, and that is what we need to keep in mind when coming to descriptions about their culture. the dichotomy guilt vs shame culture itself already bears the undeniable hallmark of western thought. that being said, for what its worth, a shame culture revolves much more around perception and being perceived on a horizontal level. which marks a kind of fluidity, or a morality based on coherence as a whole. this is evident from the pride (or shame) they take to be part of something successful (or unsuccessful). they have a strong affinity and striving to act as one, collectively speaking. A very laden eastern concept is that of 'the face'; they also seek to present a kind of 'unified face' of 'their people/nation' as a whole' to the outside (western, muslim) world. every single individual in such a collective bears that responsibility to the nation/collective they are part of. the absolute worst thing that can happen to an easterner is 'losing face', what is described as the discovery of a weakness or failure behind the facade/face they are presenting outwardly in a way that they themselves were not aware of and thus not prepared for. politically, we can think of for instance their refusal for objective checking whether kyoto norms were actually (objectively) being respected, behind the presented 'face' so to speak. they found the very insinuation that such a request brings offensive, while for us, this simply rests on our need for objective authority, because we know that in our culture/individualism, if there is no body of authority regulating and checking it, it will simply not be done. for them, it was a matter of trust, which was intimately tied to their self-worth and honor. for them, just to accept objective checking alone, regardless of positive or negative conclusions, was considered to be already a 'loss of face' because it meant we didn't trust them, therefor their honor was bruised, and therefor they shouldn't trust us. its a very weird way of thinking, to say the least.
as for our scientific method, they have accepted it, but only 'before their (original) face', not 'behind it'. they do not really take it in, instead, they seem to produce a double-layer to the face, one where they copied our way, applied it in their 'collective fashion', and then present that as a face outwardly again, but keeping that face in front of their deeper, 'original face'. collectively speaking, evidence of that can be seen in the western-alike coastal line of China, where westerners and their culture are welcome and considered harmless, as opposed to the deeper inland, where there is censorship and westerners are often met with suspicion and are closely looked after by local authorities, because there they can and often will do damage (journalists especially) to that collective face to the world, for which these authorities in particular are morally responsible, which is felt in a very strong way to them.
again, while i find it extremely interesting to think about this, my analysis here should't be considered complete or thorough in any way, shape or form, it is most likely a rather thin, and oh so western representation of something that touches upon them in an extremely deep and, to us westerners, incomprehensible way. So i must ask any eastern reader to forgive me the impudence of my curiosity; but i would surely welcome him or her to shed some more light, and, undoubtedly, correct me upon the subject, should he feel permitted to do so.
a large part of that will be due to cultural background. the west is what is called a 'guilt culture', it is set on seeking a general (initially focused on moral) authority outside of itself, before which all are rendered equal, thus, as objective as possible. in various traditional philosophical debates waged in antiquity and the middle ages we can see the seeds of a shift (or rather, schism) towards an inherent natural law, where we begin to see nature as independent from us, especially in favor of the mind as the locus of our self, and our humanity (think Descartes), and from which empirical science was born.
eastern culture is typed as a 'shame culture'. little can be actually said about how that works, because as a westerner, we are bound to an extremely deeply ingrained mode of thinking that goes back at least as far as the Greeks. this background 'works in our back', it unconsciously forms and structures our thoughts and perception before we are actually conscious of that, it is passed over and honed from generation to generation through how we are raised and educated. its the mother of all metaprogramming. as such, we can never see eastern culture the way an easterner does, we will always see it through a westerners eyes, and that is what we need to keep in mind when coming to descriptions about their culture. the dichotomy guilt vs shame culture itself already bears the undeniable hallmark of western thought. that being said, for what its worth, a shame culture revolves much more around perception and being perceived on a horizontal level. which marks a kind of fluidity, or a morality based on coherence as a whole. this is evident from the pride (or shame) they take to be part of something successful (or unsuccessful). they have a strong affinity and striving to act as one, collectively speaking. A very laden eastern concept is that of 'the face'; they also seek to present a kind of 'unified face' of 'their people/nation' as a whole' to the outside (western, muslim) world. every single individual in such a collective bears that responsibility to the nation/collective they are part of. the absolute worst thing that can happen to an easterner is 'losing face', what is described as the discovery of a weakness or failure behind the facade/face they are presenting outwardly in a way that they themselves were not aware of and thus not prepared for. politically, we can think of for instance their refusal for objective checking whether kyoto norms were actually (objectively) being respected, behind the presented 'face' so to speak. they found the very insinuation that such a request brings offensive, while for us, this simply rests on our need for objective authority, because we know that in our culture/individualism, if there is no body of authority regulating and checking it, it will simply not be done. for them, it was a matter of trust, which was intimately tied to their self-worth and honor. for them, just to accept objective checking alone, regardless of positive or negative conclusions, was considered to be already a 'loss of face' because it meant we didn't trust them, therefor their honor was bruised, and therefor they shouldn't trust us. its a very weird way of thinking, to say the least.
as for our scientific method, they have accepted it, but only 'before their (original) face', not 'behind it'. they do not really take it in, instead, they seem to produce a double-layer to the face, one where they copied our way, applied it in their 'collective fashion', and then present that as a face outwardly again, but keeping that face in front of their deeper, 'original face'. collectively speaking, evidence of that can be seen in the western-alike coastal line of China, where westerners and their culture are welcome and considered harmless, as opposed to the deeper inland, where there is censorship and westerners are often met with suspicion and are closely looked after by local authorities, because there they can and often will do damage (journalists especially) to that collective face to the world, for which these authorities in particular are morally responsible, which is felt in a very strong way to them.
again, while i find it extremely interesting to think about this, my analysis here should't be considered complete or thorough in any way, shape or form, it is most likely a rather thin, and oh so western representation of something that touches upon them in an extremely deep and, to us westerners, incomprehensible way. So i must ask any eastern reader to forgive me the impudence of my curiosity; but i would surely welcome him or her to shed some more light, and, undoubtedly, correct me upon the subject, should he feel permitted to do so.
Last edited:
panic in paradise
Bluelighter
^ right on
Id like to add how astounding and sad to me it is, from what I understand, yoga could not be introduced into the states with out sex being involved in the list of benefits, or as the top benefit, or having stanima anyway. Then concepts and methods of yoga, for example again, were thought not even suitable for our, level of general maturity and progress, mentally spiritually and physically.
... kundalini helps God make sense .
Id like to add how astounding and sad to me it is, from what I understand, yoga could not be introduced into the states with out sex being involved in the list of benefits, or as the top benefit, or having stanima anyway. Then concepts and methods of yoga, for example again, were thought not even suitable for our, level of general maturity and progress, mentally spiritually and physically.
... kundalini helps God make sense .
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
This caused the biggest shit storm in my sociology class. I say never mostly. The expression and and finding of the soul or old world language for the I.D., ego, super ego ect. is fine by me as long as it stays in reasonable bounds of real (non-philisophical) objectivity. But belief in omnipotent Gods-Deities is just horse shit. People who exhibit these behaviors should see a psychologist.
That kind of (fetishistic) childish Idealism is honestly as far as I've assessed one of the main detractors and blocks in human progression as a species and consciousness. Which I've established by way of personal declaration is probably something we should work on.
or...
Never, it never does.
That kind of (fetishistic) childish Idealism is honestly as far as I've assessed one of the main detractors and blocks in human progression as a species and consciousness. Which I've established by way of personal declaration is probably something we should work on.
or...
Never, it never does.
panic in paradise
Bluelighter
The Pantheon accelerates ones dahrmic and karmic path.
MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,549
Mrs. Doors and I had an experience that might intrigue you. She's a believing Conservative (Masorti) Jew. I'm a universalist, many-paths-one-source kind of guy, and am happy to worship wherever I get a vibe of compassion and acceptance; I told her I'd accompany her to any Jewish congregation where she felt comfortable, but that she'd have to be the one to find and pick the place. What she found, much to her frustration, was something of a ceiling and floor effect with regards to age. It seems like at most American Jewish congregations, one finds children, and one finds middle-aged adults who are already settled and with children. And one finds very little in between. She had little luck finding many fellow unmarried (but possibly dating), childless 20-somethings who were interested in an active Jewish spirituality. And the few she did find were a little on the fundamentalist side, and tended to give us the brush off when they found out I wasn't Jewish.
It seems that most American Jews follow one of two paths after they go off to college. They either fall in with a fairly strict Orthodox crowd, becoming more observant and more insular, and marry young. Or they go completely secular, returning as paying temple members years later, mainly so their kids learn some morals and become proud of their heritage, but with little interest in the spiritual side of it.
Anecdotally, I think you see a similar pattern among middle class Americans raised Catholic or Mainline Protestant. Which makes me wonder -- does this say more about American culture (and its approach to religion/spirituality) than about religion in general around the world? It seems as though for Americans, religion is something you either cling tightly to for your whole life, or something you stray from entirely during your young and wild years, maybe to wander back to half-assedly once you've got impressionable kids to impress.
I remember thinking it odd when I saw how in Thailand, becoming a Buddhist monk is not a lifetime commitment or even a very serious one necessarily, but rather, a several years long rite of passage for a large proportion of young Thai males. It was a phase in their development, after which they would marry and become a lot more secular. I'm reminded also of Japanese who are hatched pagan, matched Christian, and dispatched Buddhist, and have little overt religious observance (but a rich set of secular traditions, superstitions, and rituals) in between. Both are examples of religion asserting itself in a concentrated way at shot points in life, rather than being a constant background player. I guess America is not all that unique in this regard after all.
Last edited:
off topic but addressing desire..
Where have you gone Psyduck? I am surprised to see that more people here were not interested in the issue of desire.
What happens when the only desires which are causing dissatisfaction in your life are natural desires which are needed to survive like sustenance and perhaps sex?
How can you be content if you cannot fulfill these desires?
Where have you gone Psyduck? I am surprised to see that more people here were not interested in the issue of desire.
What happens when the only desires which are causing dissatisfaction in your life are natural desires which are needed to survive like sustenance and perhaps sex?
How can you be content if you cannot fulfill these desires?
S.greenmann
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2016
- Messages
- 24
Can you elaborate bertstarebluelight? I'd be interested in hearing your view on how amphetamines leads to spiritual growth. I agree, intrigued if we share the same experience/views.