What is spirituality?

Originally posted by DeepThought
This seems to indicate that at least an aspect of spirituality would be the search for an answer to the question "Who am I?". So I think that this could form the basis for an answer to my question that does not depend on the existence of gods or other planes of existence.

I welcome this and agree with it. But I am curious. A page or two back you described my explanation of human spirituality as 'too wide', and yet on page one, in my second post, I talked about [and I paraphrase slightly] the ability and inclination ~ i.e. human spirit in action ~ to contemplate themselves and what it is that they seem to be part of here in this world as they live their lives and I made it clear it does not depend on belief in the existence of gods although it could and does for many people.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well yes, spirit and soul are related concepts and Christianity becomes a little empty if we don't have souls to be saved.

The human spirit being a 'soul that needs to be saved' is an answer that religionist thinking generates. Rather as you suggested near the bottom of the previous page, I think the asking of questions [that may or may not lead to subscribing to such answers] is "spirituality" and not the religionist answers - in and of themselves - which factor in supernatural elements.

Originally posted by FMF
I welcome this and agree with it. But I am curious. A page or two back you described my explanation of human spirituality as 'too wide', and yet on page one, in my second post, I talked about [and I paraphrase slightly] [b]the ability and inclination ~ i.e. human spirit in action ~ to contemplate themselves and what it is that they seem to be part of here in thi ...[text shortened]... t does not depend on belief in the existence of gods although it could and does for many people.

I didn't understand that that was what you meant.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I didn't understand that that was what you meant.

Do you perceive some significant difference ~ relevant to our search for a definition on your terms ~ between the words of mine in bold at the top of this page and your "Who am I?" question?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you perceive some significant difference ~ relevant to our search for a definition on your terms ~ between the words of mine in bold at the top of this page and your "Who am I?" question?

My question is three words long and unambiguous. The bold bit above appeared in your second post in this thread on page 1 as a sentence fragment in paragraph five and you had spent most of that paragraph discussing theistic spirituality so as a key point it was lost. The abstraction theme you were making earlier in the post was more emphasized so that was the aspect I picked up on.

As to whether there's a semantic difference, again "Who am I?" is a fairly tight question, its scope is pretty clear. Whereas self-contemplation is potentially wider, it depends what you mean by it or what the reader understands by it. I think I just read it as introspection. Again, the relationship with the rest of the universe contains a lot of mundane stuff that doesn't really fit with my ill defined notion of spirituality. So it's mostly sharpness.

Originally posted by DeepThought
As to whether there's a semantic difference, again "Who am I?" is a fairly tight question, its scope is pretty clear. Whereas self-contemplation is potentially wider, it depends what you mean by it or what the reader understands by it. I think I just read it as introspection. Again, the relationship with the rest of the universe contains a lot of mund ...[text shortened]... f that doesn't really fit with my ill defined notion of spirituality. So it's mostly sharpness.

If I'd just said "self-contemplation" then perhaps that would have lacked sharpness, but what I in fact said was to contemplate themselves and what it is that they seem to be part of here in this world as they live their lives. As for "scope", when you asked your 'tight question' "Who am I?" did you intend it to specifically not encompass the question "Who is everyone else?" as being part of "spirituality"? If you are seeking a definition that restricts itself to "I" and "me" then I would be unlikely to subscribe because I think "spirituality" embraces perceptions and questions about "we", "us" and "them" too. Maybe your "Who am I?" is too 'tight' and its scope is wrong.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This question has erupted in my mind due to a couple of other threads. I cannot answer it for myself, so tell me, what does it mean to have a spiritual life or to describe oneself as spiritual? What is spirituality?

Spirituality is a pro-social action whereby one regularly engages in activities meant to aid the practitioner in attaining a transcendent state whereby they will encounter some portion of a divine presence.

Originally posted by Doward
Spirituality is a pro-social action whereby one regularly engages in activities meant to aid the practitioner in attaining a transcendent state whereby they will encounter some portion of a divine presence.

You say spirituality is pro-social action; could you give some examples of "action[s]" to illustrate how it/they might have impact on other people?

Originally posted by FMF
If I'd just said "self-contemplation" then perhaps that would have lacked sharpness, but what I in fact said was to contemplate themselves and what it is that they seem to be part of here in this world as they live their lives. As for "scope", when you asked your 'tight question' "Who am I?" did you intend it to specifically not encompass the question "Wh ...[text shortened]... s about "we", "us" and "them" too. Maybe your "Who am I?" is too 'tight' and its scope is wrong.

I said an aspect of. The problem with trying to work out who other people are is that one doesn't have access to their innermost thoughts and feelings; the only way of finding out is through the intermediary of language so that all one can do is to imagine what it would be like to be the focus of their narrative, rather than knowing what being the focus of that narrative is like. So there's an access problem with trying to define spirituality with reference to other people.

Originally posted by Doward
Spirituality is a pro-social action whereby one regularly engages in activities meant to aid the practitioner in attaining a transcendent state whereby they will encounter some portion of a divine presence.

What do you mean by "pro-social"?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I said an aspect of. The problem with trying to work out who other people are is that one doesn't have access to their innermost thoughts and feelings; the only way of finding out is through the intermediary of language so that all one can do is to imagine what it would be like to be the focus of their narrative, rather than knowing what being the focus ...[text shortened]... So there's an access problem with trying to define spirituality with reference to other people.

Maybe exploring this "access problem" ~ along with all its causes and consequences ~ is an integral part of "spirituality".

Originally posted by FMF
Maybe exploring this "access problem" ~ along with all its causes and consequences ~ is an integral part of "spirituality".

Ok., I'll buy that. The access problem is a relatively sharp formulation. It also has the benefit of allowing us to understand theistic beliefs in a God, rather than attempt to understand individual others for theists God becomes a sort of universal other to relate to through which all others become accessible; but it's also a formulation that an staunch atheist could accept (we'll see what googlefudge thinks) since it does not in itself presuppose any supernatural objects.

So we have two things, self-discovery and the breaking of the access problem. Does that cover it or is there more?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Ok., I'll buy that. The access problem is a relatively sharp formulation. It also has the benefit of allowing us to understand theistic beliefs in a God, rather than attempt to understand individual others for theists God becomes a sort of universal other to relate to through which all others become accessible; but it's also a formulation that an staun ...[text shortened]... gs, self-discovery and the breaking of the access problem. Does that cover it or is there more?

For what you are trying to formulate I feel we already have a word.

Philosophy.

I still feel that spirituality is most useful remaining tied to the supernatural.
[while the supernatural obviously doesn't exist, peoples 'experiences' of the
supernatural are real.]

Originally posted by googlefudge
For what you are trying to formulate I feel we already have a word.

Philosophy.

I still feel that spirituality is most useful remaining tied to the supernatural.
[while the supernatural obviously doesn't exist, peoples 'experiences' of the
supernatural are real.]

The problem with philosophy as a description for this is that it is impersonal.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The problem with philosophy as a description for this is that it is impersonal.

Philosophy and religiosity/theology have something in common: the human spirit. Both represent endeavour to understand. This endeavour ~ whilst participated in to differing degrees and with very different results by human ~ lies at the heart of human "spirituality".

Surrendering the word "spirituality" to those who end up believing in supernatural beings just seeks to lend credence to their imaginings, explanations, and their solutions to their hopes and fears because they can turn around to those humans who do not settle for these kinds of theist/religionist packages and say they are not qualified to discuss it because they don't have spirituality.

However, these non supernaturalists have the same spiritual faculties and capacities as those who have taken endeavour-ending refuge in religion.