Spirituality

Indeed, it is the opposite of fundamentalism with its pleasant illusions.

Spirit: The energy of a living being as it is evident in the form of thoughts and emotions.
A result of physical processes, or the cause of it? Who knows?
We tend to draw a line between the spiritul and the physical. Is it right to do so?
While our bodies and all that surrounds us may be physical, our understanding of it is a spiritual thing (with the above definition of spirit in mind).
Phrases like "the spirit of things" and "that's the spirit" are telling to me, because they reveal somthing of how we realte to the concept.
In this i like to disregard the "immortal soul" or the "divine energy" because these things only befuddle our minds with the mysticism inherited after centuries of belief in impersonal definitions that defy reason and deny constructive thought on the subject.
Think instead of the nature of energy. What is mass? What is matter? How do we percieve matter? Think of a painter, rendering the most stunning scenes with lifeless colors, creating illusions of life and vitality where otherwise there would be nothing.

Perhaps spirituality is the transformation of the inexplicable into meaning?

I think of spirit as roughly equivalent to consciousness. By defining it this way, it removes it from the domain of the supernatural and satisfies the objections of materialists who say that spirit doesn't exist. (They can't really deny the existence of consciousness unless they deny their subjectivity and only accept behavior as real. This is an extreme position.) This raises the question of whether consciousness is merely the by-product of physical processes in the brain, as materialists claim, or whether consciousness is something more fundamental to our existence, as the idealists and mystics claim. Spirituality can be thought of as the attempt to understand or experience or realize one's own essential nature, which ultimately is spirit or consciousness. Everything else about us is ephemeral or changing. However, that I am aware or conscious is the one thing that I know with absolute certainty, and the one thing that cannot change if I continue to exist, although the degree of consciousness can fluctuate (asleep or unconscious vs. being engaged in activity). Spirituality also may involve the transformation or expansion of consciousness, which amounts to using various methods such as meditation in order to culture the nervous system to reflect or express consciousness more fully, giving rise to the experience of higher states of consciousness. These states manifest a different relationship between self and the world.

I've said this before so I might as well say it again -

"You know I'm not what is considered a spiritual person, but I make one exception. There is a gnome in every computer.. "




It's true I've no interest in what is called spirituality, neither explaining the development of my view, nor debating. Many people I admire do have a interest, and I'm not hostile.

Very good, IFeelFree.
I see consciousness not merely as an epiphenomenon of particular brain properties. Cells and neurons do not by themselves manifest as consciousness. It is the interaction of many physical events/conditions/interactions that give rise to--in the sense of emergence--to what we call consciousness. And, as far as I'm concerned, this applies to virtually all life forms. The so-called physical world (and let's not forget that this is itself an idea) has as one of its emergent consequences a kind of "spirituality". The universe has consciousness as one of its properties and products.
Transcending a major dualism: matter and spirit are interdependent.

Otherwise: No matter, never mind.

This is the materialist view -- that the physical brain somehow gives rise to consciousness. However, nobody can explain how that happens. It is just as plausible that consciousness exists independent of the material world, and the brain is the mechanism by which consciousness interacts with the material world. One feature of the latter view is that it allows for immortality since consciousness is not something that you have, like a body, but what you are, independent of any condition or circumstance, so that consciousness is not dependent upon the brain for its continuity. Someone will object that when brain functioning is modified (in sleep, a coma, etc.) that consciousness appears to be extinguished. However, that demonstrates only that consciousness is not interacting with the material world via the brain, and that whatever conscious activities that occur during "unconsciousness" are unable to impress themselves upon physical memory (like a dream that you forget upon waking).

I, too, prefer idealism over materialism, but I cannot deny the evidence of the role of neurological activity for consciousness. Aside from the physical conditions correlated with coma and other forms of unconsciousness, chemical and other impacts on the brain generate changes in perception, sensation and mood (various forms of consciousness). I think that I effectively escape the purely materialist perspective by the notion of emergence: consciousness (or spirit) emerges from--and IS--the INTERACTION of many forces in the world. If we think of these forces as purely "material", we do so while forgetting that such forces are themselves forms of thought.
I see the universe as a living process, but I do not forget that such is my master metaphor rather than proven fact.