What the hell is "sprituality?"

[Invincible Summer]

I know a lot of people who say stuff like "Oh, I'm not religious - I'm spiritual."

It really bugs me because:
a) they don't really define what they mean by spiritual;
b) it seems like some hippie concept;
and c) these people feed bourgeois "spiritualists" like Eckhart Tolle who just want to sell their New Age bullshit.

Does "spiritual" just mean that they don't follow any organized religion, but that they enjoy the selfish, "spiritually" masturbatory feeling that some "spirit" is out there and they can still keep religious practices such as prayer, etc without feeling like they're part of organized religion?

It all just seems like an excuse to use the term "karma"... another concept which pisses me off.

[Communist Theory]

No idea it seems to me like something a CEO of a health food company would practice though.

[Picky Bugger]

Or create to sell more junk... :rolleyes:

[9]

To me, spirituality is the understanding that life is interconnected and interdependent. It has nothing to do with God or spirits or the supernatural or anything of that nature, nor is it something I've learned from any guru or anyone else. Its also the belief that the earth, all life, and natural resources are "sacred" and need to be vigorously protected from exploitation. Perhaps you'll define that as "some hippie concept", but it helps me to keep my ego in check and simultaneously renews my fighting spirit (spirit as in attitude, not as in..you know, something supernatural).

[Mowgli]

To me, spirituality is the understanding that life is interconnected and interdependent. It has nothing to do with God or spirits or the supernatural or anything of that nature, nor is it something I've learned from any guru or anyone else. Its also the belief that the earth, all life, and natural resources are "sacred" and need to be vigorously protected from exploitation. Perhaps you'll define that as "some hippie concept", but it helps me to keep my ego in check and simultaneously renews my fighting spirit (spirit as in attitude, not as in..you know, something supernatural).

I fully agree.

[Pogue]

No idea it seems to me like something a CEO of a health food company would practice though.

lmfao!

[Glorious Union]

I have always viewed it as agnostic.

[Invincible Summer]

To me, spirituality is the understanding that life is interconnected and interdependent. It has nothing to do with God or spirits or the supernatural or anything of that nature, nor is it something I've learned from any guru or anyone else. Its also the belief that the earth, all life, and natural resources are "sacred" and need to be vigorously protected from exploitation. Perhaps you'll define that as "some hippie concept", but it helps me to keep my ego in check and simultaneously renews my fighting spirit (spirit as in attitude, not as in..you know, something supernatural).

Your view is what I would say is just being aware, because everything is connected.

But from my encounters with the people who say they're "spiritual," they seem to mean it in a way that suggests like... they want to feel "enlightened" and "at peace with oneself and others" (all that cliche'd stuff) and they meditate/pray (to whom I have no idea) etc, but refuse to look into Buddhism or other religions that are the foundations of what they're talking about because it's "organized religion."

It's almost like.. religious anarchists or smth.



I have always viewed it as agnostic.

I can see where you're coming from.. although I would say that agnostic means more that one is not sure if there is a god/supreme force, whereas these "spiritual" people seem to believe that there is some sort of supreme force, but not necessarily one that applies to any "organized religion."

[9]

Your view is what I would say is just being aware, because everything is connected.

But from my encounters with the people who say they're "spiritual," they seem to mean it in a way that suggests like... they want to feel "enlightened" and "at peace with oneself and others" (all that cliche'd stuff) and they meditate/pray (to whom I have no idea) etc, but refuse to look into Buddhism or other religions that are the foundations of what they're talking about because it's "organized religion."



Well, I would say that (of course, this is my own opinion), being aware in this way is enlightening. And taking time to meditate on these conditions does provide a sense of peace, not just with oneself, but with everything as a whole. Also there is a sharp distinction to be drawn between meditation and prayer. Prayer is generally a function of religion, directed toward a deity, whereas meditation is simply calming/focusing the mind and engaging in reflection (self or otherwise).
I view spirituality as a very personal thing, unique to each individual. So I see nothing wrong with your friends who refuse to look into Buddhism. While studying the Buddha might provide them with certain insights, it is certainly not necessary to study the spirituality of another in order to experience spirituality for yourself.

I've heard several times in the past year or two that the gene responsible for determining whether a person is or isn't spiritual (and to what degree) has been identified. Some people are spiritual, others aren't.

[Bandito]

Bullshit of the people who don't have the balls to call themselves even agnostic,and in the same time think of themselves as above the ""inistitiutionalized" religion's dumb people"
One word-smug.

[ibn Bruce]

Religion is a dirty word to many groups because of the dogmatic or organisational connotations that go with it. Spirituality is more individually based, it focuses upon an individuals spirit or soul and does not necessarily occur within the context of defined religious thought. Either way it is to do with belief in things beyond our immediate perception, encompassing anything from destiny to the more superstitious (like astrology).

I am religious in that I follow a defined school of jurisprudence and aqidah (theology) within Islam.

I am spiritual in that I practice Islamic mysticism (tasawuf/sufism) with its focus upon the 'ruh' and other 'spiritual'/internal faculties, things that are not necessary to be 'religious', but are an aid to my religious experience. In this way there is a difference between religious ritual (the Salat/prayer) and the more 'spiritual' dhikr (rememberance of God). One is an obligation, the other an aid to the perfection of the first.

[9]

Bullshit of the people who don't have the balls to call themselves even agnostic,and in the same time think of themselves as above the ""inistitiutionalized" religion's dumb people"
One word-smug.
I don't think you have the slightest notion of what spirituality even is. I am an ATHEIST, and I am still a spiritual person. "Spiritual" is not a religious categorization like "Christian" or "Hindu" or "Deist" or "Atheist"; it is something entirely separate. I would think, before you'd make such a sweeping generalization, that you would at least take the time to find out what the word meant...
And you may want to go back and have a look at your own attitude expressed in your comment before you assign the label of "smug" to anyone else....

[Communist Theory]

I don't think you have the slightest notion of what spirituality even is. I am an ATHEIST, and I am still a spiritual person. "Spiritual" is not a religious categorization like "Christian" or "Hindu" or "Deist" or "Atheist"; it is something entirely separate. I would think, before you'd make such a sweeping generalization, that you would at least take the time to find out what the word meant...
And you may want to go back and have a look at your own attitude expressed in your comment before you assign the label of "smug" to anyone else....
Stalin sez "Off to the Gulags!!!"
You seem to be coming off with a "holier-then-thou" attitude.

[9]

What do you expect, considering the attitude in the comment I was responding to? When someone flat-out attacks a concept before they've made any attempt to understand what it means, it is difficult to respond otherwise.

[Bandito]

What made you think that i don't know anything about the subject? :)
If it's,like you said,individual,there is no such thing as a "pattern" for understanding,right?
Well,i think otherwise. You don't need to feel connection between things in the world to think that there is something wrong with exploitation. 99% of the people i met that claim to be "spiritual" fit into the profile i described. So,if you are an exception,good for you. But the whole subject is not religious,but very close,because it denies materialism and science.
However,if it renews your fighting spirit,use it and do something.

[Lynx]

Being spiritual is somehow related to being mindful.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Their "spiritual" because they think that is where the tide of society is. They think that the oppressors of the church are bad but they still want to oppressed just not officially.

[synthesis]

I think "spirituality" is an intentionally vague term that can be used to express any number of reasonable and/or ludicrous views people have about what exactly constitutes a "spirit"; these views range from metaphysical to metaphorical to atheist to agnostic to deist to those hilarious pagans who believe in magic.

The term "spirituality" seems to function as a shield, so to speak; it's often an umbrella term implying that your opinion about the relationships of grand and complicated entities is just that, an opinion.

[Lynx]

Opinions that are personally significant or meaningful to the opinion-holder may be considered spiritual.

[Pawn Power]

It is rather hard to discuss in this sense since it is used in such different ways- from people with an innate 'spirit' to a general mood or feeling.

I think it is used in some cases as a result of our limited language (or understanding) to express certain things. In other cases it used in a way that is practically meaningless.

[Revy]

Spirituality is less focused on God or the traditional concept of God. there are a number of people who, instead of an anthropomorphic supreme deity, believe in a non-sentient "universal spirit".

[Cynical Observer]

it refers to the "karmic" "new-age" hippies, and occasionally neo-pagans. it's the belief in some mystical "force", their "god" is inherently personal, their is no doctrine or clerical order to follow. also it refers to the belief in a higher power that is not an "old bearded dude in the sky".

[Nulono]

Sam Harris has some good stuff on spirituality. It's a sort of transcendent self-consciousness.

[mikelepore]

Spirituality without a deity hypothesis is probably a conditioned reflex as with Pavlov's dog. Some people remember a time when traditional religion gave them a creepy feeling that they describe as "mystery" or "awe", and now they find that they can reproduce that feeling with the symbols alone, such as candles and incense. Some other people find that the forest and clouds work better for them than indoor symbols. Either way, they have their nervous system programmed to produce a high when it gets triggered.

[Mowgli]

Spirituality, as I know it and experience it, is that one thing you get in touch with when you ask yourself: "Wo am I?". Look deeper into human emotions and feelings then the standard level. Materialism distanced ourself from our true self, from the very essence of being human.

You think that's new age corny hippie crap? Fine by me. For me it isn't. This is who I am. I live by this. And in contradiction to religion, it's not oppressive. It makes me think more freely about every fucking aspect of life, and understand it better. It makes me aware of the fact that I'm alive. imo it's mental anarchy.

[Madvillainy]

I would personally say it's a selfish attitude of wanting to claim superiority over followers of organized religions while still claiming their 'admirable' traits.

[Kronos]

A term that begins as an ambiguous metaphor can only become increasingly ridiculous as the complexity of material relations allows opportunities to misuse language as fast as it evolves.

The etymology of this term "spirit" can be traced back to Greek philosophy. Terms like "nous", "logos", "ethos" are all based from metaphysical hypothesis- that which is behind material reality.

Neo-Platonism further developed this nonsense until it spread like a linguistic disease all over Europe. Descartes made his big debut with the "second substance". Berkeley and Hegel there own with "God as the immaterial observer" and "soul as the absolute". While monotheism all over the world borrowed Platonic metaphysics, making a few modifications here and there. Funny most religious people believe their religious text is the origins of the concept of "spirit", while in fact it only stole it....and watered it down at that! When I ask a Christian if he know about Plato...he says "Yeah, I used to play with it when I was a kid."

I digress.

Really though, there is no more meaning to the term "spirit" than the metaphorical equivalent of the term "passion".

If you absolutely MUST study metaphysics and ontology, please stay with Spinoza. Many Marxists greatly admired him, and I believe it was Wittgenstein who called him "the prince of philosophers". He modeled the structure of his Tractatus after Spinoza's The Ethics. This is how one genius pats another on the back, see.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Spirituality is a desire to cling to the self-important eternal spirit aspect of religion while remaining free of restrictive doctines.

In short it is the persistance of religious delusion free of a mainstream faith system.

[Kronos]

the self-important eternal spirit aspect of religion

Yes, and so far this idea has been paraded under the banner of "morality" and "god", but does that mean the idea requires those notions to remain?

There are two pervading forms of nihilism, diametrically opposed, which become burdensome to man- one, that with death he is annihilated for the rest of eternity and two, that he is below a god.

Vulgar materialism, in the first case, brings about existential despair. Religion, in the second case, whether a lie created by the ruling classes in order to subjugate man, or as an actual truth....in that there is a god and man is his creation, forever subjects man to irreparable confusion and moral dilemma.

But there is a third alternative, "moraline free" alternative, which elevates man to his most compassionate being- suppose that there is no God, and that man is not annihilated at death. Suppose that there are no "morals", and that "life", the universe itself, is a will to power. Finally, suppose for a moment that everything that was, is and will be will eternally recur.

With this idea in mind, we have to consider the possibility that man is not annihilated at death....but rather temporarily suspended.

What if when you die, with the end of your awareness, time stops....but continues....maybe for several billions of years....until somewhere in the universe those events that led up to your existence were arranged again into working order....and you existed again.

These billions of years would pass with the blink of an eye....and you would be again.

Over and over and over again this process repeats. No "gods", no "reason", no "design", no "ends". Suddenly all your political aspirations are behind you.....something insignificant and ephemeral....and you catch a glimpse of eternity and see "yourself" as the only thing that matters.

Would you experience the purest dionysian joy at the eternal destruction and creation of the universe and the multiplicity of powers which act through it.....or would you shudder in fear?

[ cue philosophical epiphany ]

[Kronos]

Behold The Moustache:


And do you know what "the world" is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by "nothingness" as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a sphere that might be "empty" here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil," without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself--do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?-- This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!

- The Will to Power- Book 4

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think spirituality is an illogical justification of a logical phenomenon. Bertrand Russel made a decent point. He couldn't rationally explain how his aversion to torture was different from his aversion to broccoli.

In fact, we think there is a difference. Science can theoretically determine that difference if it exists. Spiritually is partially a response to harsh skepticism. It says, essentially, that if you already believe a premise, you don't discard it from lack of evidence. You keep it for convenience or other reasons. You don't just discard viewpoints because you can't justify them if you clearly lose by rejecting them. Hume on induction is an example.

People say spirituality is "what we know." It's a metaphysical realization of the "true" self separated from the "constructed" self, which is a product of the environment. I don't like this view because I think it's intellectually lazy. Philosophers always try to solve problems when they should be creating coherent solutions with a minimally sufficient set of self-justifying premises used to maximize pragmatic concerns.

The pragmatic results, the benefits, are difficult to articulate and theoretically may be impossible to articulate. Spirituality is the ridiculous notion that if you simply sit around and chant you'll reach a conclusion about your inner self. You do that by testing and philosophizing.

I've recently stepped into the realm of metaphysical nonsense myself. I've decided mathematics concepts should be conceptualized as unobservable meta-physical objects for pragmatic concerns, and moral solutions are also a product of this meta-ethical third world.

Environment ---- Humans

The separation is where we place causal relations and things that don't satisfy our requirements for existence. However, if you conceptualize a self-contained system from a top-down perspective, those relations are theoretically justifiable but pragmatically unjustifiable. That's why induction is our foundation.

The incompleteness theorem says things can't be coherent and not self-referential. This is a logical realization of the limits of human language. From there, we employ meta-language to achieve results that are self-evidently pragmatic. This is also borrowing from the idea of epistemological anarchism. If two pragmatic views are contradictory, we need not disregard one necessarily if their independent results are consequentially preferable to the intersecting falsehoods (which may be true depending on the results we achieve).

Look how many religious people believe despite the logical evidence to the contrary. They have to be convinced their pragmatic benefits will outweigh the loss. Pascal wasn't convinced, but he's bad at math.

In other words, spirituality is a meta-logical notion that we can reach conclusions between external and internal on the basis of pragmatics, and these conclusions aren't necessarily illogical.

The difficulty is explaining why mathematics is universally accepted while other views are not. However, mathematics is an interaction between physical objects that is necessarily consistent. Morality isn't necessarily consistent, although it theoretically could be. People like this notion. I like the idea of objective morality as an atheist. The idea of "God" creates a pure reasoner who justifies morality. The problems are evident. Firstly, people don't use reason to acquire his views. Secondly, people think this world is pure because the pure reasoner created it, etc.

I think in theory a person who could combine the knowledge of all lives and all environments, then placed into the body of a Platonic reasoner, could theoretically justify reach a conclusion. The issue is whether scientific applications to the brain are consistent with this idea.

Given chemicals and brain interactions, we can theoretically solve this issue. However, there are still mathematical inconsistencies. Mathematically, it's rational to take a significant risk for a large enough payoff, Pascal's wager, for instance. When we say smoking is stupid but driving a car (you could die) is not, we make a fundamental claim about an "ideal risk ratio." Ideally, you only take guaranteed results. However, this prevents you from leaving your house. Can we theoretically know everything. Science presumes this for pragmatic reasons, but it doesn't explain why risking your life is desirable.

I'd say something like this.

Benefit of Driving > Harm of Accident x Probability of Accident + Value of Life

You have to attach some value to your future, presumably, to be an evolutionary successful organism. There are some who suggest a fight/flight response is a personality difference. It gets convoluted, like me, and I get off-topic.

So I think spirituality is a manifestation of logical relations in an illogical way. Essentially, there is some truth to the claim that "atheists have belief." We fundamentally have a belief in sensory accuracy.

[Bandito]

Great post.

[Chambered Word]

Spirituality is something people tend to do while watching porn. That's my opinion, anyway.

[ckaihatsu]

Spirituality is more individually based, it focuses upon an individuals spirit or soul and does not necessarily occur within the context of defined religious thought.


This would be the *positive* connotation of the term -- others here have addressed the *negative* aspect of the term very well, especially as it's used as a stand-in for an *actual* political program.

Many also use this term to sidestep important questions and issues about their own life history -- it's like a null term that's about as substantive as saying "I am living person with a past and plans for the future."

I made a few definitions of my own, at this link:


How to Secularize Common Religious Terms

http://tinyurl.com/ywonel


- spirit -- one's planning for the future, or "life"-y / "lifey" -- having to do with the narrative of life

- soul -- one's recollection of one's own past (Oscar Wilde)





Either way it is to do with belief in things beyond our immediate perception, encompassing anything from destiny to the more superstitious (like astrology).


This would be the "wild card", or catch-all, definition -- it's a handy word to use as a category for anything yet unknown, undiscovered by scientific research and formal theory. I wouldn't presume to say that we've reached the fullest extent of scientific theoretical knowledge, but there *is* *plenty* that *has* been discovered by science. People might use 'spirituality' as a critique against certain avenues of modern scientific investigations, but, unfortunately, many also use it to argue from a position of ignorance, to batter *against* valid scientific knowledge. I'm critical of excessive reductionism -- it's a very useful method for scientific pursuits, but perhaps there *should be* parameters to it...(!)

We should also recognize that human technological abilities have become *very* sophisticated, and there are *plenty* of warfare-type technologies that can be used *against* a person, to fool their perceptions -- raven1.net is a good source for this kind of thing....


Chris




--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --