A life without spirituality.

rosborne,

The phrase "I see" is ironic in the context of "self transcendence"

You are tending to use words lke "understand" and "event" in the conventional microcosmic sense of "an observer separated from an external reality". Such a fragmentation tends to result in the conclusion of a separate "grandiose controller".

The "holistic position" is a monist macrocosmic one in which observers and observed are "at one"....this changes the very nature of "understanding" from "a self with (apparant) potential to control part of the world" to an undifferentiated "self-world" continuum (e.g. the Tao). In other words it involves a major epistemological and ontological shift ......a re-appraisal of parochial views of "knowledge" and "existence". Such a re-appraisal is at the core of "spirituality" whether or not this has theistic aspects.

megaman

Note that the dissolution/deflation of "control" implied above in part contributes to your questions about "free will". A similar but more formal treatment of "control" in terms of nested hierarchical systems can be found in Capra (The Web of Life).

Good morning Frank and how's Nancy? Is your golf game getting better?
The other atheist, The Dys.

Good morning, Dys.

Nancy is fine...golf game is okay.

Everything is just hunky dory.

I see Joe posted a few pictures from the Pan in the New York thread. Here's a link. Come take a look.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2099127#2099127

Oh, by the way...I gotcha "the other atheist"... right heah...swingin'.

It seems I was on the right track as far as understanding the concept. That's good to hear. I shall go to the local library in search of the book. I think I still have the ability to place orders for books so I may have to wait a while before I get ahold of it. Thank you for discussion thus far, it's been much appreciated.

Too deep for me.

Is there anyone who would like to put forth their opinion as to why it is better not to have spirituality than to have it?

In my opinion...for the same reason it "is better" not to worry about walking under a ladder or having a black cat cross your path...than to worry about such things.

At best...one can only assert "spiritual" significance in things that happen under circumstances best described as "coincidental."

Nothing wrong with that...but it does inject an element of superstition...at least, in my opinion.

I am not suggesting the people who offer "spiritual" explanations for unknown, coincidential things ARE WRONG. They may well be right. But to assert it with the vigor some do....and in the face of obviously ambiguous evidence....really makes it second best to simply leaving it an unknown.

Snood,

Regarding "better without"

If "spirituality" is to be equated with "religion" then there are well known arguments (e.g Harris) about religion being pernicious at the macrolevel even if it appears beneficial at the level of the individual or small group.

If on the other hand "spirituality" is equated with "holistic selflessness" then this could either be a recipe for "selfless acts" which we might applaud, or "meditational inactivity" which we might deplore.

In summary we must ask "better for whom".

Or "better in what way?"
To me--given my conception of spirituality--to live a life without spirituality is to live one's life unseriously. But "spirituality" in this sense has nothing to do with theology, spirits, otherworldliness, absolute morality, etc.; it's the seriousness with which we take this one life of ours. Do we live it in a wasteful "absent-minded" way, or do we live it with great attention, curiosity and appreciation?

awesome replies from all, and I'm chewin' on 'em....

Snood, by the way your signature quotation is profound:

"Whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."

How could it be otherwise? "What if" hypothetical alternatives are forms of unsanity.

How could it be otherwise? I don't know, but I think the line from 'Desiderata' is just addressing a common uncertainty that people may feel sometime or another, in their lives...

Desiderata

Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs;
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.


Max Ehrmann, Desiderata, Copyright 1952.

Thanks, Snood.

Do you share Descates' view that there must exist a benevolent God who gave him the ability to perceive the external world?

And, if I may - from where did you get your sig line?

Don't ask. I agree with Dys that Plato and Descartes screwed up, as they contributed to the formation of, Western civilization. (or was it Aristotle, Dys?).

Ah, JL, now I know you can't be serious. How can you blame a man for the way people interpreted his work? Without their work, ho knows where society had stood now? Saying they are 'to blame' is saying that without them things would be better.

Snood,
I am not sure if you are asking me where I got the sig line. If so, I'm not quite sure. I stumbled across it somewhere on the WWW, and it appealed to me on different layers, so I used it.
As for Descartes, no, not necessarily. But, I must add, I don't exclude the possibility either. The messahge in itself, however, was not what I had in mind when I mentioned Descartes. I was referring more to the way said message was constructed.

When I asked that question, I wanted to impress that if Descartes was a spiritual person in the sense that he tried to consider the mind body duality problems with rational argumentation (leaving aside whether he succeeded in this or not)... If he can be considered spiritual, then so can I.

Naj

I think Descartes had a spiritual life, but apparently not for the same reasons about which you are inquiring.

Then so do I (Perhaps you misunderstood me. That isn't particularly hard, at times I even misunderstand myself).

Naj and Snood, most philosophers of the days of Kant and Descartes gave some "libation" to the powers of Christianity. So would I at that time. But their real philosophical contributions were very free of theological considerations. Going back to Plato, my criticism (and I think that of Dys as well) is his creation of a level of Reality that consisted of Pure Thought (the ideas of the great Cosmic Architect), totally ignoring--or not realizing--that "meaning" is the result of human culture creation. And Descartes' great misdeed was his separation of mind and the objects of consciousness (in addition to his theologically significant separation of mind and soul, I guess). Descartes reinforced--or gave philosophical "legitimacy"--to DUALISM, the subject-object (or subject-predicate) distinction built into our grammar but not into Reality.

great misdeed? Can you explain why you find this Carthesian duality a misdeed, JL? It may not be something you believe in, but that doesn't qualify it as a misdeed in itself.

Oh Naj, that would require that I reconstruct threads from the last two or more years. If you are really interested look up the threads in the philosophy section, especially those containing inputs by me, Fresco, Twyvel, Asherman, and others. It has to do with the debate between us and JoefromChicago and others on the nature of dualism.