Feeding Spiritual Hunger

[doppelganger]

Rodge, as I said in my first post in response in this thread, I'm not interested in arguing with you. Every question I've asked you've responded to as though it were an argument. None of them were. I really am trying to find out what you consider to be your message for the "spiritually undernourished" (and what that even means). For example, you keep asking for me to argue against "free will." I have no desire to do so. I just wanted to read what you mean by the term (it has many meanings).

I take it that this is all there is to your message?

"1) Considering that most of the universe is scattered atoms and inanimate objects, it is amazing and wonderful that you are able to experience the richness of human self-awareneess. It's an everyday miracle!

"2) You did not cause yourself to be a human, rather than an ant or a dust cloud. It's a gift!

"3) At the center of your self-awareness is free will, which may be influenced by outside forces but, by definition, is ultimately under your control. Spirituality is that part of your reality that exists in harmony with the physical world but is apart from the physical world, not pre-determined by physical law.

So people should revel in their "self-awareness," and reject materialistic determinism? And then they'll be spiritually fulfilled? Is that all there is to your message?

 

[RationalRodge]

So people should revel in their "self-awareness," and reject materialistic determinism? And then they'll be spiritually fulfilled? Is that all there is to your message?

You're getting close. For many people to explicitly acknowledge (to themselves) their non-physical spirituality would be a first step, a step that they'd be unlikely to take in response to talk about "God" and "grace" and "redemption." This step involves not only a rejection of materialistic determinism, but also a rejection of the idea that "God" directs our lives, and a rejection of vague nihilism that "life happens." This acknowledgement of their personal spirituality puts them on the first step of a path that can lead to a more profound sense of personal responsibility, morality, supportive community, and deeper spiritual understanding. I don't believe that "spiritual fulfillment" is an on-off binary; I believe that it it is a process that takes place over time. (And, by the way, I wouldn't propose a message that I didn't believe in. So what I propose to say about "self" or "existence" or "free will" does express my beliefs. However, what I say about how that message might work is only a theory. I think how it does work is a fact question to be determined by experimentation, not a philosophical question to be determined by an inquiry into the symbology of language. Perhaps this difference is at the heart of our exchanges.)

 

[PureX]

I'm eager to respond to your comments and questions about this idea.

Rodge Adams

A way of simplifying this might be to just try and respond to other human beings as spiritual entities (events), rather than physical entities (objects).

 

[RationalRodge]

A way of simplifying this might be to just try and respond to other human beings as spiritual entities (events), rather than physical entities (objects).

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the practical difference. Could you respond with a specific illustration of how the two might be different? Thanks.

Rodge

 

[PureX]

I think that as we go through our day, we often fall into the mind set of negociating a course of obstacles as we move toward our own goals. Many of those obstacles are other human beings, who are likewise going through their days negociating their own course of obstacles in pursuit of their own goals. And the result is that we too often end up treating each other as obstacles to be negociated in persuit of our own goals. We don't recognize each other as fellow travellers, seeking mostly the same goals, who can give each other aid and comfort and friendship and wisdom along the way.

I'm just suggesting that we try to stop viewing our own lives as a course of obstacles in pursuit of our own desires and goals, and instead try viewing ourselves as just one among many fellow humans who are all seeking the same goals and who can help each other significantly along the way to achieving those goals.

 

[Willamena]

For many people to explicitly acknowledge (to themselves) their non-physical spirituality would be a first step, a step that they'd be unlikely to take in response to talk about "God" and "grace" and "redemption." This step involves not only a rejection of materialistic determinism, but also a rejection of the idea that "God" directs our lives, and a rejection of vague nihilism that "life happens." This acknowledgement of their personal spirituality puts them on the first step of a path that can lead to a more profound sense of personal responsibility, morality, supportive community, and deeper spiritual understanding. I don't believe that "spiritual fulfillment" is an on-off binary; I believe that it it is a process that takes place over time. (And, by the way, I wouldn't propose a message that I didn't believe in. So what I propose to say about "self" or "existence" or "free will" does express my beliefs. However, what I say about how that message might work is only a theory. I think how it does work is a fact question to be determined by experimentation, not a philosophical question to be determined by an inquiry into the symbology of language. Perhaps this difference is at the heart of our exchanges.)

But how do you propose they take that "first step"? Would you just explain to them what "spirituality" means to you? What does it mean to you?

 

[doppelganger]

But how do you propose they take that "first step"? Would you just explain to them what "spirituality" means to you? What does it mean to you?

Good luck with that. I think I'm done with this one.

Rodge, I wish you the very best in your endeavor.

 

[Random]

For many people to explicitly acknowledge (to themselves) their non-physical spirituality would be a first step, a step that they'd be unlikely to take in response to talk about "God" and "grace" and "redemption." This step involves not only a rejection of materialistic determinism, but also a rejection of the idea that "God" directs our lives, and a rejection of vague nihilism that "life happens."

Determinism is the beginning and end, alpha-omega, whether you call it "Fate", "Destiny", "God's Will", or even "DNA". Likewise saying "Life happens" is not nihilistic in the sense of uncaused, because only GOD Himself can be that, but rather determines the outcome of living blind within the illusion of moral agency and freewill.

This acknowledgement of their personal spirituality puts them on the first step of a path that can lead to a more profound sense of personal responsibility, morality, supportive community, and deeper spiritual understanding. I don't believe that "spiritual fulfillment" is an on-off binary; I believe that it it is a process that takes place over time. (And, by the way, I wouldn't propose a message that I didn't believe in. So what I propose to say about "self" or "existence" or "free will" does express my beliefs. However, what I say about how that message might work is only a theory. I think how it does work is a fact question to be determined by experimentation, not a philosophical question to be determined by an inquiry into the symbology of language.

See that bit in red, above? That bit is not true @ all: because anyone who genuinely craves the first one ("personal responsibility") can have not the wit nor the will to master the other three, because they stick themselves in the egoic role of Do-er and want more to be wordly kings than spiriutal beings, always, no exceptions. Realizing Self and World are but pale reflections of each other, one must transcend the urge to centre everything upon oneself. Morality, Community and profound comprehension of spirituality do not follow on from an engorged mantle of personal responsiblilty: this simply isn't humanly possible.

 

[RationalRodge]

But how do you propose they take that "first step"? Would you just explain to them what "spirituality" means to you? What does it mean to you?

When I refer to "spirituality" I'm referring to that part of each person's daily experience that is not dictated by the laws of nature. I'm not saying that "spirituality" might not be more than that, but, for me, that's the minimum definition. This kind of spirituality exists in harmony with physical laws (it is not "supernatural") but is a part of reality that is non-physical. There can be no scientific proof or disproof of the non-physical, but my contention is that if you believe you have free will, you by definition believe that part of your reality is not controlled by physical law. That's what I would explain to others. And, if they recognize the truth of this in their own experience, they will have taken the first step on the path to acknowledging and cultivating their spirituality.

 

[RationalRodge]

Determinism is the beginning and end, alpha-omega, whether you call it "Fate", "Destiny", "God's Will", or even "DNA". Likewise saying "Life happens" is not nihilistic in the sense of uncaused, because only GOD Himself can be that, but rather determines the outcome of living blind within the illusion of moral agency and freewill.

I haven't referred to "Fate" or "Destiny" or "God's will" because they refer to theories that I don't accept. I do accept "DNA," but I think that it is only one factor among many that influence our decisions.

See that bit in red, above? That bit is not true @ all: because anyone who genuinely craves the first one ("personal responsibility") can have not the wit nor the will to master the other three, because they stick themselves in the egoic role of Do-er and want more to be wordly kings than spiriutal beings, always, no exceptions. Realizing Self and World are but pale reflections of each other, one must transcend the urge to centre everything upon oneself. Morality, Community and profound comprehension of spirituality do not follow on from an engorged mantle of personal responsiblilty: this simply isn't humanly possible.

This statement is so full of assumptions that I hardly know where to begin. I'll just say that I don't think most people would understand or accept the theory you seem to be presenting. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but that what you say isn't very helpful in feeding a large part of the spiritually undernourished population. I'm trying to connect with their perceived reality; you seem to be focused on something else.

Rodge

 

[Random]

This statement is so full of assumptions that I hardly know where to begin. I'll just say that I don't think most people would understand or accept the theory you seem to be presenting. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but that what you say isn't very helpful in feeding a large part of the spiritually undernourished population. I'm trying to connect with their perceived reality; you seem to be focused on something else.

Why are you trying to connect with their percieved reality? What makes you think you are not part of that in any case, right now? What if their perceived reality is the wrong one?

 

[PureX]

When I refer to "spirituality" I'm referring to that part of each person's daily experience that is not dictated by the laws of nature. I'm not saying that "spirituality" might not be more than that, but, for me, that's the minimum definition. This kind of spirituality exists in harmony with physical laws (it is not "supernatural") but is a part of reality that is non-physical. There can be no scientific proof or disproof of the non-physical, but my contention is that if you believe you have free will, you by definition believe that part of your reality is not controlled by physical law. That's what I would explain to others. And, if they recognize the truth of this in their own experience, they will have taken the first step on the path to acknowledging and cultivating their spirituality.

I think I understand this post, but I don't think I can agree with it.

You seem to be assuming that "spirit" is for some reason apart from or other than material existence. But I would say that the material existence of, say a human being, is the material expression of that human being's spirit. Sort of like iron filing express a magnetic field. The way energy behaves in the material universe is an expression of some as yet not understood principals, or logic, or "spirit". And it's the same with a human being. Our physical presence is an expression of a more complex and mysterious multiplex of phenomena. And that mysterious multiplex of phenomena has a uniqueness to it, that is only "us". We use the term "spirit" to refer to that uniqueness, and to it's multiplex of expression.

I think the whole issue of free will vs. determinism is an irrelevant distraction.

 

[Willamena]

When I refer to "spirituality" I'm referring to that part of each person's daily experience that is not dictated by the laws of nature. I'm not saying that "spirituality" might not be more than that, but, for me, that's the minimum definition. This kind of spirituality exists in harmony with physical laws (it is not "supernatural") but is a part of reality that is non-physical. There can be no scientific proof or disproof of the non-physical, but my contention is that if you believe you have free will, you by definition believe that part of your reality is not controlled by physical law. That's what I would explain to others. And, if they recognize the truth of this in their own experience, they will have taken the first step on the path to acknowledging and cultivating their spirituality.

Alright, but there are rational explanations for free will, explanations that do not exempt "physical law".

 

[RationalRodge]

Alright, but there are rational explanations for free will, explanations that do not exempt "physical law".

Thantks! This is the discussion I've been hoping for, because it gets at the heart of what I'm proposing. Could you say something about the most plausible explanation of free will that does not exempt "physical law"?

Rodge

 

[RationalRodge]

Why are you trying to connect with their percieved reality? What makes you think you are not part of that in any case, right now? What if their perceived reality is the wrong one?

"Perceived reality" is what folks think is real, right? That's how we view ourselves, our lives, our relationships, our meaning. But that perceived reality can be unexamined—or probed deeply. It can even be challenged, but that's tricky. You have to make a case that's plausible to their old perceived reality, or convince them that a new perceived reality is more valid. I'm trying to connect to their percieved reality because that's what communication is all about.

Rodge

 

[lunamoth]

I'm trying to connect to their percieved reality because that's what communication is all about.

Rodge

Now where have I heard that before...

 

[RationalRodge]

....You seem to be assuming that "spirit" is for some reason apart from or other than material existence. But I would say that the material existence of, say a human being, is the material expression of that human being's spirit. Sort of like iron filing express a magnetic field. The way energy behaves in the material universe is an expression of some as yet not understood principals, or logic, or "spirit". And it's the same with a human being. Our physical presence is an expression of a more complex and mysterious multiplex of phenomena. And that mysterious multiplex of phenomena has a uniqueness to it, that is only "us". We use the term "spirit" to refer to that uniqueness, and to it's multiplex of expression....

We seem to be agreeing that, for purposes of discussion, some distinction can be made between "material existence" and "spirit." You say "material existence" is an expression of "spirit." I say that the "spirit" is a non-physical aspect of the integrated human "self," which includes body, emotions, thoughts, and decisions. I'm not sure that our different ways of stating this relationship make much practical difference to how most people experience life.

Nevertheless, I realize that you are talking about a profound theory of ultimate reality. However, it is only a theory, as is my theory about spirituality and free will. The challenged faced by all of us is how to present our theories to groups of skeptics. In our hurried, materialistic world, what evidence of the truth of your theory would you present to the skeptics who have, say, a five-minute attention span? (Note that I said "evidence," not just an explanation of the theory.) I think my question is fair, because I've already, in this threat, presented succinct summaries of the evidence I would present.

Rodge

 

[RationalRodge]

... because I've already, in this threat, presented succinct summaries of the evidence I would present.

Rodge

Freudian slip? I hope not. I meant "thread" not "threat."

Rodge

 

[Willamena]

Thantks! This is the discussion I've been hoping for, because it gets at the heart of what I'm proposing. Could you say something about the most plausible explanation of free will that does not exempt "physical law"?

Rodge

Edit: I'll see if I can find an approprite thread about it to link to, tomorrow.

 

[Jeremiah]

"My observation: A large number of folks in our society are spiritually undernourished. They spend little time or effort tending to their inner lives."

-

I think that a majority of the world’s populaces is not spiritually undernourished.
I think you may have a sound plan but I would direct it at the smaller group of people still asking "why" of course it maybe very difficult to satisfy that question.

-

"My theory: Many of these people ignore or reject spirituality because they associate it with God or religion, toward which they are either indifferent or hostile."

-

I would think that the people who reject "God" and "religion" do so because they are not fully satisfy with the answer that they provide. Indifferent and hostility may contribute some but I do not believe that it is the dominating factor.

-

"My prescription: One way to express our concern would be to help people recognize that they possess a miraculous gift of spirituality — a reality that they can confirm through their own experience, without reference to either God or religion."

"How can we do this? I think we need only to point out three commonly-accepted ideas"

-

And I do not think that it will be the type of people that just accept ideas, they need to be sold on the idea. People who are willing to just accept ideas are generally not spiritually undernourished they already have found a structure that works for them.

The problem I see is that you want to take people that did not just accept any other religion and to have them just accept your ideas. And when asked for an explanation, you tell them that is not important and to just accept your ideas. I do not think this will work as efficiently as it could, unless you can successfully answer Dopp's questions.