Spirituality
09 Nov 15
28 Nov 15
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtPerhaps I need to be more explicit.
There are two possibilities, either there is a creator God or there is not. If there is a creator God then we are the way we are because of him and have the "unconscious and internal biological incentives" to cause us to be spiritual animals as part of some divine plan. If there is not a God then we still have this instrinct, only it evolved.
It str ...[text shortened]... han understanding that it may have some biological function. But see my reply to moonbus below.
Simply put, in animals (including humans) there is a crude and primitive mechanism for influencing behavior via a system of internal biological incentives. These "feelings" as well as "thoughts" that percolate up from the unconscious often lead individuals to varying degrees of irrational thoughts and behavior. A side effect of this is "spirituality".
I recently read "A Sheltering Sky". The following passage may be of some interest.
One reason she had such a strong dislike of hearing dreams recounted was that the telling of them brought straightway to her attention the struggle that raged in her-the war between reason and atavism. In intellectual discussions she was always the proponent of scientific method; at the same time it was inevitable that she should regard the dream as an omen.
28 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbusRead my response to DT. Does that cover it?
1. So tell us what you mean by "all of "spirituality" ultimately stems from a non-understanding of the unconscious and internal biological incentives used to control behavior."
2. "...evolution's way of tricking us.."??? Do you think, as googlefudge appears to think, that love is fundamentally a chemical reaction in the glands (hormones)?
28 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeLuckily I'd forgotten why I asked the question and was forced to reread your earlier post. I'd misread it the first time and thought that you were saying that there is nothing beyond empirically determined facts. Which is the point I was getting at by bringing up metaphysics.
Yes. Of course.
I think that this is what Wittgenstein (?) meant when he said: "Facts are not the end of the matter.", or at least that is what I understand him to have meant.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbus
[b]gf: You seem confused. Yes, I was; I recalled one of your posts to another thread in which you maintained that we do not know anything which cannot be proved. And so I was momentarily perplexed, whether you think there exists anything in the universe other than sub-atomic particles and the forces which move them about.
I think that it is objecti ...[text shortened]... t of what a spiritual tradition does is to open one's mind to enriched layers of meaningfulness.
Yes, I was; I recalled one of your posts to another thread in which you maintained that we do not know anything which cannot be proved. And so I was momentarily perplexed, whether you think there exists anything in the universe other than sub-atomic particles and the forces which move them about.
There are different kinds/classes of knowledge. In that earlier discussion I was talking about propositional knowledge.
For which I will maintain that we cannot know anything that cannot be proven.
However, there are different kinds of knowledge. Such as knowing what it feels like [for you] to see a beautiful sunset.
And for those different kinds of knowledge, different rules apply.
But you apparently think either that religion is not one of the factors of social cohesion (which is demonstratively false), or that it is a negative, damaging factor.
Religion is a net negative/damaging factor, yes.
Everything religion does that's good can be done without religion, and without religions negative baggage.
The world becomes better the less religious it is [and gets less religious the better it is].
It appears that you are not sensitive to this dimension of meaning, but that does not show that it is not there. Part of what a spiritual tradition does is to open one's mind to enriched layers of meaningfulness.
Then appearances have you completely and utterly deceived. Your analysis of my view is wrong to the point of backwardness.
Try again by asking questions instead of assuming. And importantly ask the right questions.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe original probably came with context that the post I was asked for a view on lacked.
Luckily I'd forgotten why I asked the question and was forced to reread your earlier post. I'd misread it the first time and thought that you were saying that there is nothing beyond empirically determined facts. Which is the point I was getting at by bringing up metaphysics.
I think that this is what Wittgenstein (?) meant when he said: "Facts are not the end of the matter.", or at least that is what I understand him to have meant.
28 Nov 15
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhen you talk about the side effect of spirituality, what do you mean by spirituality? What I'm getting at here is that a biological basis for spirituality to subvene on doesn't really tell us what it is. It's like claiming biology is reducible to physics - try explaining why all known living organisms have only left handed chiral molecules solely in terms of the Standard Model of Particle Physics - essentially one can't, it's an additional rule that living things have generated for themselves. Similarly, your crude and primitive mechanism is something that spirituality may well subvene on, but that doesn't tell us what it is.
Perhaps I need to be more explicit.
Simply put, in animals (including humans) there is a crude and primitive mechanism for influencing behavior via a system of internal biological incentives. These "feelings" as well as "thoughts" that percolate up from the unconscious often lead individuals to varying degrees of irrational thoughts and behavior. A sid ...[text shortened]... method; at the same time it was inevitable that she should regard the dream as an omen. [/quote]
28 Nov 15
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhen you talk about the side effect of spirituality, what do you mean by spirituality?
When you talk about the side effect of spirituality, what do you mean by spirituality? What I'm getting at here is that a biological basis for spirituality to subvene on doesn't really tell us what it is. It's like claiming biology is reducible to physics - try explaining why all known living organisms have only left handed chiral molecules solely in t ...[text shortened]... chanism is something that spirituality may well subvene on, but that doesn't tell us what it is.
From wiki:
"There is no single, widely-agreed definition of spirituality.[5][6][note 2] Surveys of the definition of the term, as used in scholarly research, show a broad range of definitions, with very limited similitude.[7]"
That said, seems that most have some idea of what it entails. I'm not trying to use it in any special way beyond what is commonly understood by the word.
It's like claiming biology is reducible to physics...
Not really. Perhaps you need to fully consider the phrase "varying degrees of irrational thoughts and behavior".
It has been my experience in general -- and this thread has so far confirmed it -- that people in the West have real trouble getting their minds round the idea that there could be spirituality without God, without belief in God, and without the mythological baggage associated with Judeo-Christianity (Creationism, miracle stories and all the rest of it). So dominant is the Judeo-Christian mode of thinking in Western society, even among ostensible atheists!
But look at Zen: there you will find spirituality without the mythological mumbo-jumbo, not merely possible, but actually highly developed and flourishing for thousands of years.
gf: "Everything religion does that's good can be done without religion, and without religion's negative baggage. "
I do not deny that there are lot of bad things about religion (pedophile priests, stupid counter-factual myths, etc. etc. -- we hardly need to recount them all).
Still, a world without religion is a world with a less rich repertoire of symbols for expressing man's place in nature and airing existential concerns. We saw in the Soviet and Chinese societies what happens when religion is actively suppressed: things don't get better. People just get further alienated, for they lack a vocabulary which expresses existential concerns.
30 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbus
I agree that discipline is a means, not an end. It also matters what kind of discipline it is. So let me throw out another puzzle piece and let us see whether we can fit it into a broader picture which is gradually emerging here.
Gandhi said that it is more difficult to control one's thoughts than to control the wind. This touches on something which I be ...[text shortened]... deologues who are indoctrinating angry young men to blow themselves up Paris theaters and cafes.
Gandhi said that it is more difficult to control one's thoughts than to control the wind.Ain't that the truth.
I agree there's something wrong with "consciousness raising for business success", at first glance it seems unlikely to lead to anything like a spiritual awakening. I don't think this criticism quite applies to "meditation for metabolic control", while I agree that it's lacking in explicitly spiritual content, the skills the patient learns are instantly transferable and the implied stress control strikes me as a spiritual improvement. From a medical point of view it's ideal as adverse effects are highly unlikely.
I'm not sure what you are saying about Satanists is quite right; I know next to nothing about them but think they associate Satan with Pan and don't regard him as having had a bad press from the Christians. I find it a little difficult to take these neo-religions entirely seriously, but I don't think they're spiritually negative. Your consciousness deadening point applies more clearly to the SS.
30 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI must confess that I have no direct personal acquaintance with satanism or satanists, so I could be wrong about that bit.
I agree there's something wrong with "consciousness raising for business success", at first glance it seems unlikely to lead to anything like a spiritual awakening. I don't think this criticism quite applies to "meditation for hey're spiritually negative. Your consciousness deadening point applies more clearly to the SS.
There are many ways to control the mind, not only one's own but others' as well, and many motivations for doing so. But not all methods of controlling thought qualify as spiritual or consciousness raising. What goes on at GTMO is an attempt at mind control -- both the minds of the detainees and of their warders.
"Consciousness raising for business success" is a contradiction, in my opinion -- hence, Scientology rates low on my list of candidates for being considered a spiritual movement. I realize that they claim to charge no money and accept only what they euphemistically call "donations"; but just try to take two of their 'seminars' without making a donation! They know very well how to exert pressure on their clients to make them pay up. (In this case, I do have some acquaintance with their methods and doctrines.)
30 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbusI think it's useful to talk about why these things aren't spiritual as it helps us refine our ideas of what spirituality is. Certainly Satanism as depicted in "The Devil Rides Out" (*) would count as anti-spiritual.
I must confess that I have no direct personal acquaintance with satanism or satanists, so I could be wrong about that bit.
There are many ways to control the mind, not only one's own but others' as well, and many motivations for doing so. But not all methods of controlling thought qualify as spiritual or consciousness raising. What goes on at GTMO is an a ...[text shortened]... make them pay up. (In this case, I do have some acquaintance with their methods and doctrines.)
I'm going to start a religion - that's where the money is!Says it all really.
L. Ron Hubbard - founder of Scientology
While we're on this subject is there a good introductory book on Zen Buddhism, ideally one that assumes its reader has a scientific rationalist world view, in other words one designed for a reasonably well educated Westerner. It's something I know little about.
(*) As an amusement I'm trying to see how many Hammer film titles I can get into posts in a relevant fashion.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbusI disagree.
It has been my experience in general -- and this thread has so far confirmed it -- that people in the West have real trouble getting their minds round the idea that there could be spirituality without God, without belief in God, and without the mythological baggage associated with Judeo-Christianity (Creationism, miracle stories and all the rest of it). So d ...[text shortened]... umbo, not merely possible, but actually highly developed and flourishing for thousands of years.
I think that you can only come to that conclusion from this thread by misunderstanding what people are saying in it.
Certainly if you are taking that view from any of my posts, then you have not understood any of my posts.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbusWhich, you will note, is why I don't promote the active suppression of religions.
gf: "Everything religion does that's good can be done without religion, and without religion's negative baggage. "
I do not deny that there are lot of bad things about religion (pedophile priests, stupid counter-factual myths, etc. etc. -- we hardly need to recount them all).
Still, a world without religion is a world with a less rich repertoire of sym ...[text shortened]... ple just get further alienated, for they lack a vocabulary which expresses existential concerns.
The world would nevertheless be a better place if people stopped believing in and following religions.
There is an effectively infinite "repertoire of symbols for expressing humans place in nature etc etc"
The trouble with the religious ones is that they are all wrong.
So are many [most] of the non-religious ones.
But some are not wrong, these are far better than the ones that are wrong, and those that are wrong
should be dropped.