States of Awareness and the "Spirit"

[doppelganger]

Oneness is a bit more involved that it appears many perceive. It's interesting walking the tightrope between nothingness and eternity.

Yes. There can be a point where the whole notion of "atheists" and "theists" and the question of "God's existence" is all really rather silly.

 

[Songbird]

Yes. There can be a point where the whole notion of "atheists" and "theists" and the question of "God's existence" is all really rather silly.

I visit that point often.

 

[lunamoth]

And that "God" evolves as the person changes.

Well, I started with lack of God, then I found God, then I became one with God (and creation).

 

[doppelganger]

Well, I started with lack of God, then I found God, then I became one with God (and creation).

That's pretty much the order in which it would occur according to Cook-Grueter.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yes. There can be a point where the whole notion of "atheists" and "theists" and the question of "God's existence" is all really rather silly.

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I will meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about
language, ideas, even the phrase each other
doesn't make any sense."

 

[doppelganger]

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I will meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about
language, ideas, even the phrase each other
doesn't make any sense."

Very nice. Did you write that?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Very nice. Did you write that?

Oh oops. Forgot the credit:

The Essential Rumi (1995)

 

[Spiffy]

If one's psyche is such that one must project God as an external idol, that's unfortunately exactly how I would expect it to sound. No intent to chastize or to even change your mind. That would be a fool's errand. The intent is merely to describe.

Possible, of course. But what you contend for is also exactly what one would expect to find--re the worship of self--based on writings much older than either one of us which warn of it. Wisdom, according to the Scriptures, seldom 'sounds' like wisdom to human ears.

 

[doppelganger]

Possible, of course. But what you contend for is also exactly what one would expect to find--re the worship of self--based on writings much older than either one of us which warn of it.

Worship of self? Actually, that's what I'm pointing out is going on. Faith through self-actualization is the diminishment of self-worship. Belief, on the other hand, is the epitome of self-worship.

Wisdom, according to the Scriptures, seldom 'sounds' like wisdom to human ears.

Indeed. But Scriptures are for those who have ears to hear. If you use a master carpenter's tools, you'll only end up cutting yourself.

 

[Spiffy]

But Scriptures are for those who have ears to hear. If you use a master carpenter's tools, you'll only end up cutting yourself.

Clever answer....I like this.

Faith through self-actualization is the diminishment of self-worship.

I think that in spiritual matters, any form of 'self-actualization' is self worship. Of course, you may be right and I wrong. I offer the an opposing view just as food for thought. What we find unappealing we simply dismiss anyway.

 

[doppelganger]

I think that in spiritual matters, any form of 'self-actualization' is self worship.

Once you know it's a projection of your own anxieties and psychological needs, worshiping it is not very feasible. It's the separation that makes the process of worship possible.

What we find unappealing we simply dismiss anyway.

Correct. And what we need to find, we will find . . . and if it isn't there, we will put it there.

 

[Otherright]

The point is as stated. A modern mind can understand awakening to "the Spirit" (i.e. the symbolic centerpiece of Paul's Christianity) through a post-theistic lens and make it genuine and meaningful again.

OMG, I love this subject. I'm in there with you man. But I am currently studying the science of what this all means and how it works within a scientific framework. What is really going on in consciousness and awareness. Not pseudo-science, like noetics and the such. Real science.

I think when you look at what is being done by Penrose, Hameroff, Livingston (and his protege, what's his name), McTaggert, Ward, and Hagelin, you get a very clear picture of what is going on in the universe and where we are in it.

 

[Muffled]

From my blog:


http://agnosticgnostic.blogspot.com/2006/10/theology-and-process.html



"Theology" and process

Though it may sometimes sound like I write about "theology," I really don't. As I've alluded to in a few posts, my approach to religious symbolism, language and ideas is mythological and psychological, but also non-Theistic. So when I talk about a "Spirit" I mean it in the sense of a "state of awareness" or "interpretive template" that governs the way I think about who I am. In short, the "Spirit" is a symbolic construct to represent certain progressive milestones along the spectrum of moral awareness.

The pioneering psychologist Jean Piaget performed extensive research on the spectrum of cognition, which he theorized consisted of an arc of development in identifiable stages. Others since Piaget have applied a similar methodology to the understanding the development of ego and moral awareness.

For example, Lawrence Kohlberg's research led him to conclude that moral development could be understood in essentially six stages grouped into three levels:

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
2. Self-interest orientation

Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(a.k.a. The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(a.k.a. Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(a.k.a. Principled conscience)
​

I think Kohlberg has presented a logical approach except for 6. which I believe is pure conjecture and not likely to be provable. re My OP on general debates: How Does One Choose?

I don't see how redefining spirit helps to engender communication with christians since it obfuscates raher than elucidates.

 

[doppelganger]

I think Kohlberg has presented a logical approach except for 6. which I believe is pure conjecture and not likely to be provable. re My OP on general debates: How Does One Choose?

There's quite a bit of research that people function at unitive moral stages like number 6 (in Kohlberg's version).

I don't see how redefining spirit helps to engender communication with christians since it obfuscates raher than elucidates.

It helps put the function of the various forms that Christianity can take into a broader perspective so that an individual's approach to Christianity and how they are using it can be better understood. The beliefs are irrelevant to understanding. Understanding the function of the belief and the method of believing is what facilitates communication.