A life without spirituality.

For example, to be conscious of "ourselves" at all is to some extent a "spiritual position" because it assumes a transcendent position of "self observation".

The distinction between the 'material' and the 'non material' is disengenuous to begin with, as nothing has been demonstrated to be non-material.

Doktor S wrote:

The distinction between the 'material' and the 'non material' is disengenuous to begin with, as nothing has been demonstrated to be non-material.

Do you mean in action or in thought? This goes to Fresco's position too.

By Dok's definition that would suggest the mental states (such as pleasure, pain, love, hate, belief) are only personified by their demonstrable physicality.

I edited my post prolly before just as you responded, could you give your view on this?

Quote:

By Dok's definition that would suggest the mental states (such as pleasure, pain, love, hate, belief) are only personified by their demonstrable physicality.

fresco wrote:

For example, to be conscious of "ourselves" at all is to some extent a "spiritual position" because it assumes a transcendent position of "self observation".

Fresco, what do you consider this transcendent position of "self observation" to be? Illusory in some way? A meaningless set of words to describe...?

Hello Chumly?

So how was the vacation? I'm curious to see what you've come up with...

Let's not get this thread locked.

Openmindedness is key. If something is beyond the realm of your own personal comprehension, no need to ridicule it. The unexplainable is not all that threatening, is it?

Anyway - to my question. How many people here live life without spirituality?

"I would say that if `dead' matter has reared up this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be plain to even the most devoted materialist that the matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful powers, and may not impossibly be, as Hardy has suggested, `but one masks of many worn by the Great Face behind.' " (Eiseley L., "The Immense Journey", 1958)

My dog blinked the universe into existence in its entirely 10 minutes ago. How much weight are you willing to give this theology?

How about a religion that demands the extermination of all lesser peoples? Are you willing to dialogue with open-mindedness as per these two?

snood wrote:

Anyway - to my question. How many people here live life without spirituality?

First, thanks for starting this thread Snood. I think this question is far more engaging than one on religion if only because the lines are less clearly drawn.

My short answer to the question, "do I live life without spirituality?" would have to be no. I am always aware, in every day life of an essence to the world around me which hints of a somehow meaningful "unknown" within the naked elegance of nature itself.

It is this unknown which is spirituality for me.

I've always loved the works of Loren Eiseley. I don't see things exactly as he did, but very very close. Here's a little sample...

Loren Eiseley wrote:

"I would say that if `dead' matter has reared up this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be plain to even the most devoted materialist that the matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful powers, and may not impossibly be, as Hardy has suggested, `but one masks of many worn by the Great Face behind.' " (Eiseley L., "The Immense Journey", 1958)

When I say it is helpful to be openminded, I don't expect anyone to surrender their common sense or sanity at the door, for the sake of social correctness. Do you see the discussion in this thread thus far as on par with a ten-minute old, dog-blinked universe?

As soon as we run across anyone in this thread who professes belief in their dog as creator of the universe, or in a religion such as the one you suggest, I'll submit myself to be judged for openmindedness.

snood wrote:

When I say it is helpful to be openminded, I don't expect anyone to surrender their common sense or sanity at the door, for the sake of social correctness. Do you see the discussion in this thread thus far as on par with a ten-minute old, dog-blinked universe?

I accept the Dog Universe as just as plausible and mertible as any other theology, and is no more or less a surrendering of "common sense or sanity at the door" than any other theology. You infer, for reasons yet to be explained that you disagree the Dog Universe has equal merit to other theologies, so let's hear your rationale for your lack of open-mindedness.

snood wrote:

As soon as we run across anyone in this thread who professes belief in their dog as creator of the universe, or in a religion such as the one you suggest, I'll submit myself to be judged for openmindedness.

Again I will accept both the Dog Universe and the Lesser Peoples to be the equal of any other theology thus we can indeed address your open-mindedness claim within that context.

The fact of the matter is: the popularity of lack thereof of a given theology is not a legitimate justification for or against open-mindedness of said theology.