A life without spirituality.

megamanXplosion wrote:

"The System of Nature, Vol. 1," by Baron D'Holbach, is a great read about the inherent nonsense of spirituality.

I mean it however you meant it in the above post.

0 Replies

megamanXplosion

Thanks for some refreshing input into this topic.

Although I have not read Holbach directly it seems to me he makes a lot of sense from the position of "materialism". For example, concepts of "higher consciousness" as a basis for "spirituality" may be no more than self hypnotic states with hormonal correlates. On the other had, recent advances in science...particularly quantum mechanics...have underscored the inadequacies of materialism/naive realism as an a priori epistemological basis. Niels Bohr himself adopted the Yin-Yang symbol as his coat of arms in acknowledgement of "the spiritual",and even Harris in his recent attack on organized religions and "faith" accepts an essential element of "spirituality" in any world view.

BTW you are quite right in your highlighting of the word "opinions" on this thread. Indeed the concept of "facts" in these matters tends to be "naive" itself and those who argue for "evidence" etc seem to have no appreciation as to how scientists go about about the business of constructing shifting explanatory models. This particular constructive social activity which we call "science" shifts the meaning of "evidence" away from "fact" towards "functional consensus".

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

snood wrote:
...and you're saying your opinion is the same as Holbach's, I take it - that spirituality is silly?

If you mean "spirituality" as somehow coming to terms with the "animating force of the body" or something along those lines: yes.

If you mean spirituality in some wishy-washy way like being inspired to paint after one sees an aurora borealis: no.

this is what you posted:

Quote:

"The System of Nature, Vol. 1," by Baron D'Holbach, is a great read about the inherent nonsense of spirituality.

You didn't proffer any finetuned definition of spirituality - only that a pet author of yours said it's "silly".

so, when I simply ask you "do you agree with that opinion", you tapdance "depends on the meaning of spirituality".

If you're not a confused soul, you're doing a great impression of one.

0 Replies

He's much, much more than a "confused soul"...and much, much more than someone who manages to get people who normally disagree on almost everything...to agree.

He's a fraud.

More about that as he reveals himself.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:
snood wrote:
...and you're saying your opinion is the same as Holbach's, I take it - that spirituality is silly?

If you mean "spirituality" as somehow coming to terms with the "animating force of the body" or something along those lines: yes.

If you mean spirituality in some wishy-washy way like being inspired to paint after one sees an aurora borealis: no.

this is what you posted:

Quote:
"The System of Nature, Vol. 1," by Baron D'Holbach, is a great read about the inherent nonsense of spirituality.

You didn't proffer any finetuned definition of spirituality - only that a pet author of yours said it's "silly".

so, when I simply ask you "do you agree with that opinion", you tapdance "depends on the meaning of spirituality".

If you're not a confused soul, you're doing a great impression of one.

I am confused.

What do you consider "spirituality"? Is it becoming inspired by a sight, sound, smell, touch, or taste? Is it keeping cultural traditions? Is it the animating force of the body? Is it communion with an immaterial being inside one's body? Is it communion with an immaterial being outside of one's body? Is it reflecting on one's past decisions to become a better person? Is it the upholding of one's religious faith? Is it yoga?

Do you honestly expect someone to say "yes, it is silly," or "no, it is not silly," to a question that could pertain to practically anything? Regardless of the answer one gives it would only result in ridicule. The only justification that would needed for the ridicule is to pull a private definition out of one's bag of tricks. Such a vague question, whether intentionally or unknowingly, can only be a trick. It is truly no different than demanding a yes or no answer to the question: have you stopped beating your wife?

I shall not stick my head under the proverbial guillotine. If you want a specific answer then provide a specific definition.

Quote:

He's much, much more than a "confused soul"...and much, much more than someone who manages to get people who normally disagree on almost everything...to agree.

He's a fraud.

More about that as he reveals himself.

"Personal attacks are a direct violation of this [Terms of Use] Agreement and are grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service."

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

Quote:
He's much, much more than a "confused soul"...and much, much more than someone who manages to get people who normally disagree on almost everything...to agree.

He's a fraud.

More about that as he reveals himself.

"Personal attacks are a direct violation of this [Terms of Use] Agreement and are grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service."

Bite me!

But I promise you this:

I will never make a personal attack on you that is more insulting than the insults you heap on yourself with the smug, arrogant dung you have posted in (what is supposed to be) your short visit here so far.

0 Replies

...............Phoenix,

I am beginning to agree with your "quality" argument !

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

"The System of Nature, Vol. 1," by Baron D'Holbach, is a great read about the inherent nonsense of spirituality.

Anyone who knows the works of d'Holbach is ok by me. Welcome to Able2Know, megaman.

0 Replies

I've heard of D'Holbach and his materialism, but I have not read him. I assume that his perspective is consistent with that of, say, Voltaire. As such it is one that is of great legitimacy to me. But I also value the "spirituality" of mystics like Krishnamurti and Eckhart. What I am saying is that one need not choose between them for they are not mutually opposed. Both Voltaire and Eckhart, I believe, are opposed to false science (e.g., astrology and the "spiritualism" of psychics) and pseudo spiritualists (e.g., fundamentalists of protestant, catholic and muslim brands--what we might call "fairytalists"). Both of these major (scientific and spiritual) approaches to life's meanings--reflecting as they do the conscious and unconscious dimensions of our mental lives (art bridges the two)--are expressions of human creativity, never "given", as in the mythologies of burning bushes and the simplistic epistemology of scientific"discoveries". Fresco's reference to the perspective of Thomas Kuhn on "scientific revolutions" points to the latter very effectively.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Both of these major (scientific and spiritual) approaches to life's meanings--reflecting as they do the conscious and unconscious dimensions of our mental lives (art bridges the two)--are expressions of human creativity, never "given", as in the mythologies of burning bushes and the simplistic epistemology of scientific"discoveries". Fresco's reference to the perspective of Thomas Kuhn on "scientific revolutions" points to the latter very effectively.

So would your definition of legitimate spirituality be one in which the self alone discovers some deeper meaning? Would false spirituality always be that which is revealed, or 'given' (by someone else) as you say?

0 Replies

My materialism oft times usurps my zen.

0 Replies

Unzips yer what ? ! ? ! ?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:
"The System of Nature, Vol. 1," by Baron D'Holbach, is a great read about the inherent nonsense of spirituality.

I mean it however you meant it in the above post.

For some reason or another this post zoomed past my line of sight. Holbach describes several kinds of spirituality in the book ranging from the animating force of the body, the immaterial being inside the body, the progression of that line of thought to gods, and various other conceptions of what constitutes spirituality. I do think such things are silly.

Quote:

Although I have not read Holbach directly it seems to me he makes a lot of sense from the position of "materialism". For example, concepts of "higher consciousness" as a basis for "spirituality" may be no more than self hypnotic states with hormonal correlates. On the other had, recent advances in science...particularly quantum mechanics...have underscored the inadequacies of materialism/naive realism as an a priori epistemological basis. Niels Bohr himself adopted the Yin-Yang symbol as his coat of arms in acknowledgement of "the spiritual",and even Harris in his recent attack on organized religions and "faith" accepts an essential element of "spirituality" in any world view.

Holbach does make a lot of sense. It puts a fresh perspective on many conceptions of spirituality and would recommend the book to anyone, even if they do not necessarily agree with his view.

How has quantum mechanics affected materialism? My understanding of quantum mechanics is slim so I may need help to grasp your point. I can see no way in which quantum mechanics has affected the apparent validity of materialism. The only part that could be construed as relating to spirituality is quantum decoherency, the theory of multiple universes. However, all universes are in isolation from eachother and cannot influence eachother, so that zaps any possible spiritual relation. If I am way off the mark then please elaborate on what you meant.

Quote:

BTW you are quite right in your highlighting of the word "opinions" on this thread. Indeed the concept of "facts" in these matters tends to be "naive" itself and those who argue for "evidence" etc seem to have no appreciation as to how scientists go about about the business of constructing shifting explanatory models. This particular constructive social activity which we call "science" shifts the meaning of "evidence" away from "fact" towards "functional consensus".

I agree, asking for facts or even evidence concerning spirituality, or the lack thereof, is naive.

Quote:

I will never make a personal attack on you that is more insulting than the insults you heap on yourself with the smug, arrogant dung you have posted in (what is supposed to be) your short visit here so far.

I thought I was courteous when I decided not to report your "bag of wind" attack against me. I thought the same when I decided not to report your "fraud" attack against me. And for showing you the error of your ways instead of asking a moderator or administrator to show you the hard way, I get the infamous "bite me." Mark my words well: I shall report any subsequent personal attacks from you towards me or towards any other member on these forums.

Quote:

Anyone who knows the works of d'Holbach is ok by me. Welcome to Able2Know, megaman.

Thank you for the welcoming Smile

0 Replies

megaman,

A google search on Niels Bohr and Spirituality yielded this

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/physics_quantum.htm

within which are the following quotations

"Even more intriguing (than the Uncertainty Principle) is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the Universe - a concept known as 'The Observer Effect' - implying that the Universe is a product of consciousness".

"Non-Locality is defined as phenomenon that occurrences on one side of the Universe can instantly effect 'matter' on the other side of the Universe. Non-locality has profound implications for the prevailing world view of reality in that it clearly demonstrates the inter-connectedness between all matter in the Physical Universe and the illusory nature of Space and Time, something that those who have had some sort of deep spiritual experience are already well aware of."

A more detailed reference to nonlocality which incorporates JLN's point on "art" is this:

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

"Even more intriguing (than the Uncertainty Principle) is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the Universe - a concept known as 'The Observer Effect' - implying that the Universe is a product of consciousness".

Does this mean that before the Earth formed and life developed, there was something else somewhere in the Universe which was conscious?

Was there something conscious in the Universe moments after the Big Bang?

How is this possible?

0 Replies

A lot to consider here, but first thanks for the great comic relief from our old vadeville pair, Dys and Set.

Tycoon, your question deserves some kind of response.

I would argue, rightly or wrongly, that the term, spirituality, best refers to experience or subjective perspective. It's not the majesty of the cathedral that is "spiritual"; it's the response it creates that may be. Even zen masters universally remind us that what they say or do has no value for their students compared to the weight of the students' own experience . As the Buddha put it, "Be a lantern unto yourself." But I guess it can be said that that there is a literature "out there' in the world that has at least indirect relevance to our spiritual life, the buddhist sutras, the books of the Bible, the published lectures of Krishnamurti and Meister Eckhart, etc.
My objection is to our misconceptions of the spiritual and the scientific. Science is not the infallible Truth-Machine of the naive followers of Scientisim. Virtually all discoveries are only provisional "truths." Science has no monopoly on Truth: men were learning "the hard way" long before the emergence of the scienti fic method.And the"success" of virtually all spiritual pronouncements rest either upon the preparedness or the creduality of those its "inspires".

_________________
----

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

fresco wrote:
"Even more intriguing (than the Uncertainty Principle) is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the Universe - a concept known as 'The Observer Effect' - implying that the Universe is a product of consciousness".

Does this mean that before the Earth formed and life developed, there was something else somewhere in the Universe which was conscious?

Was there something conscious in the Universe moments after the Big Bang?

How is this possible?

1.The Bishop Berkeley view would indeed be that "God" is the ultimate consciousness/observer....... but we need not evoke "a traditional deity" to maintain a concept of "holistic consciousness".

2. The concept of before the big bang lacks coherence within an ontology where "time" and "space" have been deconstructed as implied in the above references. (similar comments on something else re "non-locality")The "big bang" scenario is essentially a linear chain of retrospective reasoning which may "explain" some macrophenomena but may fail to capture the essence of non-linear autopoietic systems such as "living organisms". Whether "consciousness" is a necessary or sufficient aspect of "organization" is obviously problematic given that we generally interpret the term as selfconsciousness.

This is therefore where the terms "consciousness" "intelligence" "design" and "spirit" can become interchangeable according to the leanings of the enquirer despite the fact that Prigogine has shown the occurence of basic dissipative structures to be "spontaneous". The question remains open as to whether such "spontaneity" as expressed by the non-linear dynamics of "chaos theory" is prone to "higher level tweaking" or operates "blindly". Therein lies the (modern) crux of the argument between theologians such as Polkinghorne and rationalists such as Dawkins.

0 Replies

We mustn't think of the Consciousness in Fresco's posts as identical to (human) consciousness. But it IS other than the "non-consciousness" we ascribe to rocks.
But just as Hinduism's Atman of the individual "soul" is considered a dimension of the Brahmin or Universal Soul, but not identical to it, a similar relationship might (I won't bet the house on it, however) apply to the relationship between consciousness and Consciousness.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

megaman,

A google search on Niels Bohr and Spirituality yielded this

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/physics_quantum.htm

within which are the following quotations

"Even more intriguing (than the Uncertainty Principle) is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the Universe - a concept known as 'The Observer Effect' - implying that the Universe is a product of consciousness".

"Non-Locality is defined as phenomenon that occurrences on one side of the Universe can instantly effect 'matter' on the other side of the Universe. Non-locality has profound implications for the prevailing world view of reality in that it clearly demonstrates the inter-connectedness between all matter in the Physical Universe and the illusory nature of Space and Time, something that those who have had some sort of deep spiritual experience are already well aware of."

A more detailed reference to nonlocality which incorporates JLN's point on "art" is this:

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm

I have done a little reading. I do not pretend to fully understand it. (I suppose it would be naive for anyone to claim they fully understood it, but you know I mean that relatively.) From my understanding the observer effect essentially means that potentialities, such as an existence or a happenstance, only become realities when an observer projects and perceives that existence or happenstance. However, this can supposedly work between time periods meaning that the past can will things in the future to happen but also that future and present observers can will things before their time to exist or happen. If this is true then there must be two streams of time, one going forward and one going backward. Because it seems that things go in and out of existence it has been theorized that they are bouncing in and out of multiple universes but they behave in the other universe like they were still a part of the current universe and then pop back into ours. This means there is a correlating concept of time amongst the multiple universes so they must also have a forward and backward time stream. In essence, an observer in another universe far into the future would be able to will things to happen in this universe far back into our past or that we could do the same to another universe.

Under such conditions, is it fair to say there is such a thing as free will? You may not be acting on your accord but by some observer's and that observer may be acting on accord of some other observer and that observer may be acting on accord of you which acts on accord of another observer and so on. I fail to see how free will would fit into such a picture. If there is no such thing as free will then in what way could it be considered a form or prerequisite for spirituality? Is it possible that some kind of God willed time into existence and created its own universe and then humanity or some other observer willed that God out of existence and created its own concept of time and the big bang? Would this still conflict with materialism?

I'm so confused...

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

1.The Bishop Berkeley view would indeed be that "God" is the ultimate consciousness/observer....... but we need not evoke "a traditional deity" to maintain a concept of "holistic consciousness".

I see.

So, because we don't understand why and observer seems to affect a quantum event, we therefor conclude that anything else we don't understand is evidence of an observer. And the more grand the lack of our knowledge the more grand the observer must be?

0 Replies

A life without spirituality.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know