I'm open to talk about religious matters in a way that, I'd suggest, you're not. — mcdoodle

I'm open to talking about anything in pretty much any way, depending on the context. That doesn't mean I always think that certain ways of speaking are the most useful or clear, but I'm open to them, at least in theory (with perhaps the exception of speaking literal nonsense). I wonder what conclusions you have drawn about me to make you think otherwise?

I thought your answer to him, like your answer here about 'profound', sought different substitutes or meanings for the word 'spirituality' because you don't like it and its connotations. — mcdoodle

I have no problems with any connotation. Which connotation did you think I have a problem with, and why did you think that?

If you don't want to use the word, well, fine. — mcdoodle

Language is a cultural activity, and use changes because people, sometimes explicitly, and sometimes more gradually and subtly, or even without any intent, negotiate what qualifies as an acceptable use of a word. Mostly, this is a non-political behavior, but at times it is political (I mean political only in the sense that it is behavior designed to persuade others). I'm contending that there are good reasons not to use the word as it has more recently come to be used (to refer to something non-specific, non-religious, inherently mysterious, and conceptually ill defined), at least, or perhaps especially, in the context of philosophy, as it leads to equivocation. That's it in a nutshell.

Would it be fair to say that in the same way that an average Joe sees the world through the lens of "naive realism", that what you're talking about as the unified outlook on the spirit/matter question pre-Descartes might be described as "naive monism"? That people in general neither saw a distinction between the two, nor did it occur to anyone to question if there should be a distinction. Is that correct? Is that what you are suggesting I need understand before I can understand what spirituality is? — Reformed Nihilist

Naive monism is a great expression.

But let me parse this sentence of yours:

"... people in general neither saw a distinction between the two, nor did it occur to anyone to question if there should be a distinction."

I'm with you on the first clause, but I disagree with the second one, and the reason is that the subject of the phrase is not the same in each clause. People in general did not saw a distinction between the two, and people in general, therefore, did not question whether there should be a distinction... but to say that it did not occur to anyone would be going a step too far, because it did occur to someone, or rather, someones (different someones in different cultures). The someones to which the issue presented itself were -- pretty much by definition -- extra-ordinary personalities. We know some of their names, and some of their titles. Poets. Philosophers. Prophets. These were the guys who perceived room for an unfolding of possibilities in the compact (i.e. naively monist) experience. (At least in proto-Western societies -- those same social functions would have different names in India or China, and I'm not sufficiently well versed in the history of those cultures to comment further in that direction).

The main point as regards a proper (if by proper we mean a historically and psychologically grounded) understanding of spirituality is that the plain word refers to a symbol (rather than a concept), and that this symbol was developed, by those P-guys, out of an experience. That experience was present in them (again, pretty much by definition -- no one can unfold the compact meanings of an experience if he did not have that experience); and, perhaps more importantly, they apprehended it [the experience] as universally human. The three classes of P-guys were in the business of educating their contemporaries as to what these contemporaries should be experiencing; their actions were overwhelmingly characterized as being in opposition to the "common sense" of their time.

The P-guys were successful in their endeavor, otherwise we would not be talking about this. And they still are the best conduit that leads from the compact experience to the unfolded symbols of spirit and matter, which is why one great avenue for understanding those symbols is to study them, placing yourself in the position of their interlocutors. Homer and Hesiod, Isaiah and Jeremiah, Plato and Aristotle, and their peers. It is not simply a matter of reading their works (you of course have read at least the philosophers, and perhaps also the poets and the prophets), but of re-enacting the social conflicts being addressed by those works. When Plato (to use an example that is surely well known to you) addresses Euthyphro (in the person of his Socrates), what is he arguing against? What is Euthyphro lacking? Euthyphro, to be sure, would certainly claim to understand spirituality (if he were presented to that word in its prima facie meaning), and perhaps to understand it better than Socrates... but it is up to the reader to decide whether Euthyphro's understanding of spirituality is better or worse than Socrates'. The main difference between the two is that Socrates' is open, and Euthyphro's is closed (and the Israelite prophets would achieve great clarity regarding this particular issue). While Euthyphro claims to be in possession of "knowledge" (about 'spirit'), Socrates denies it, while claiming to be able to recognize it and to yearn for it.

A psychological comparison between the fictional characters (Socrates and Euthyphro) would be greatly illuminating for the understanding of spirituality, spirituality-according-to-Plato. And this ugly construct (X-according-to-Y) becomes less ugly once we realize that the intersection of the understanding of the great Y's in the history of mankind is luminous for meaning -- that the poets, prophets and philosophers basically agree on the meaning of spirit, and that the way for us to understand it is to follow their lead.

P.S. Note that I'm using "philosophers" here as a class of thinkers that were devoted to wrestling meaning out of compact experiences, just as poets and prophets were. The term is not equivalent to the dictionary definition, and many great thinkers, particularly modern ones, who would be considered by you and I to be 'philosophers' would not fit so well into this class, because they were devoted to different problems.

We know some of their names, and some of their titles. Poets. Philosophers. Prophets. — Mariner

and, most importantly, Platonists (although you do go on to mention him.)

I'm reading a few items relating to what is called 'radical orthodoxy'. This is a movement started by John Millbank and Catherine Pickstock which focusses on the shift from neo-Platonist metaphysics to Duns Scotus radical 'flattening' of ontology. This, they argue (and it's a book-length argument) was one of the most important precursors of modernity and scientific materialism, insofar as it asserts that the being of the Divine is of the same kind as the being of anything else. In the process of reading this title which explores these ideas.

I'm contending that there are good reasons not to use the word as it has more recently come to be used (to refer to something non-specific, non-religious, inherently mysterious, and conceptually ill defined), at least, or perhaps especially, in the context of philosophy, as it leads to equivocation. That's it in a nutshell. — Reformed Nihilist

Oh, right. This more particular remark drove me to the philosophers' index where I see there's much more work going on about spirituality than I'd realized.

But I've delved into a few papers and there seems to be a great effort to specify, and to define conceptually. There's a very clear paper by King and Koenig, for instance, which others seem to reference a lot, and which argues for defining spirituality from how people use the word, in relation to belief, practice, awareness and experience.

I don't immediately see that this work is any worse than other philosophy-of-psychology stuff. I read a lot about emotions earlier in the year, for instance, and the same problems seem to apply to the study of them as to spirituality: too many proposed indices, a lack of underlying consensus, arising from the lack of an agreed theoretical framework, but with some good work being done all the same.

The core issue about spirituality is, to me, that there is work being done because it's a hot topic for people, practically speaking in healthcare, and more generally, because more people than before avow that they are spiritual but not (conventionally) religious. This is the opposite of equivocation: people are using the word to clarify their feelings about the world. I recognize a change for example in the availability of funeral ceremonies. 25 years ago when an atheist relative died we faced the option either of a Christian service or of a very priggish humanist who wouldn't allow any sort of prayer, so we opted for the Unitarian, a fine person who conducted exactly the right ceremony. But nowadays in my part of the world there are a lot of 'celebrants' who will conduct all sorts of services.

the same problems seem to apply to the study of them as to spirituality: too many proposed indices, a lack of underlying consensus, arising from the lack of an agreed theoretical framework, but with some good work being done all the same. — mcdoodle

Let me make a distinction here. In technical, rigorous work, it is not unusual to use terminology in a specialized way. If we were talking about emotions, I don't have a problem with a psychologist saying "in the context of this paper, 'love' means the emotional state that meets the following criteria...". I do however have a problem with transferring that specialized usage into common usage, and then using that to draw some conclusions about some other, conceptually I'll defined version of the word. That is what I am suggesting is the problem with the common use, not a specialized use of the term.

because more people than before avow that they are spiritual but not (conventionally) religious. This is the opposite of equivocation: people are using the word to clarify their feelings about the world — mcdoodle

I'm not suggesting that nothing is being communicated when someone claims to be "spiritual but not religious", I'm saying that making decisions about one's life based on ill defined concepts is probably a bad idea. Language serves two functions: a means of communication, and a framework by which we can conceptualize the world we live in. "Fuzzy" concepts are a problem for the latter, not the prior.

Maybe this is jumping ahead. Is the central distinction you are trying to draw my attention to the one between spirituality as a concept and spirituality as a symbol (or perhaps metaphor)?

And this ugly construct (X-according-to-Y) becomes less ugly once we realize that the intersection of the understanding of the great Y's in the history of mankind is luminous for meaning -- that the poets, prophets and philosophers basically agree on the meaning of spirit, and that the way for us to understand it is to follow their lead. — Mariner

Frankly, this is the sentiment that I have trouble getting on board with, and it's for a few reasons. First, what qualifies as "basically agree(ing)"? Where various thinkers differ are not important? What qualifies a thinker to fit into your paradigm of a great thinker, worthy of making the cut regarding their thoughts on spirituality? This formulation just seems a little relaxed, and like it could confirm any number of narratives that might appeal to a person.

Second, is the assertion that "the way for us to understand it is to follow their lead". Although I agree that a look at the history of a term can be instructive in understanding it's modern counterpart, I fear you may be putting too much weight on this. Why must we follow their lead? I'm open to hearing why it's a good idea, but I'm not sure I'll stipulate to it being necessarily true on its face.

I'm finding it hard to put my finger on what you mean now, talking about:

the problem with the common use, not a specialized use of the term — Reformed Nihilist

...when I was responding to your concern about:

the word as it has more recently come to be used (to refer to something non-specific, non-religious, inherently mysterious, and conceptually ill defined), at least, or perhaps especially, in the context of philosophy, as it leads to equivocation. — Reformed Nihilist

Common use just is common use. I live near an old hippy town, there's a lot of vague spirituality around there, man. Be the change that you want to see in the world. Cleanse the toxins. Manage with NLP. These things aren't my scene, I'm too pedantic and particular to tolerate the vagueness of it, but people are going to use the words they're going to use. Is it contributing to some harm? Do you think it's somehow anti-intellectual?

As I indicated in writing about changing funeral options, I've found a growing acceptance of non-religious spirituality a blessing in ways like that, because when it comes to funerals, I don't want to have to choose between the rigid alternatives of Christian and anti-religious humanist. You're sure you're not an anti-religious humanist who yearns for that lost clarity?

Common use just is common use. I live near an old hippy town, there's a lot of vague spirituality around there, man. Be the change that you want to see in the world. Cleanse the toxins. Manage with NLP. These things aren't my scene, I'm too pedantic and particular to tolerate the vagueness of it, but people are going to use the words they're going to use. Is it contributing to some harm? Do you think it's somehow anti-intellectual? — mcdoodle

I'm really talking mostly about the range of use between a lowest common denominator and highly specific and technical use, which is a really big range, and I although I don't doubt that includes work done by respected philosophers, there isn't one I'm prepared to cite at the moment. If you think this equivocation doesn't occur within academic philosophy, then I can dig into it to find you some good examples (or discover none and prove myself wrong). It also encompasses the sorts of dialogue that occurs on sites like this, between people who have an interest in speaking and thinking clearly and coherently on a subject, but aren't used to, or aren't even interested in, the rigor associated with academia (or semi-academic, pseudo-academic, or peripherally academic discussion). This is where I personally find the most clear cases of this sort of equivocation, and would suggest it has occurred with at least three of the people I've discussed with on this thread.

Do I think it's anti-intellectual? I guess so. I'm not sure what implications that phrase has. I think it is a case of engaging in the practice if thinking, and doing it less than optimally. I also think that the world would be a better place if we could incrementally become better at the practice of thinking, so engaging with a subject like this has a few possible goals or benefits. If I am correct that the use of the term represents "thinking poorly", then I have at least offered those engaging in this dialogue, and those reading it, an opportunity to see the flaws in this way of thinking. If I am incorrect, then I have the same opportunity.

As I indicated in writing about changing funeral options, I've found a growing acceptance of non-religious spirituality a blessing in ways like that, because when it comes to funerals, I don't want to have to choose between the rigid alternatives of Christian and anti-religious humanist. — mcdoodle

I don't understand why those are rigid alternatives. It seems to me, from the point of view of cultural practices, even within christianity, there is a broad range of practices, and the secular world is wide open. Personally, I've asked that whatever funeral ceremony that occurs when I die has a portion that is in respect to my family's beliefs (they're the one's mourning, after all) and one in respect to mine. It doesn't have to be complicated if you don't want it to be.

You're sure you're not an anti-religious humanist who yearns for that lost clarity? — mcdoodle

I don't really understand this question. What clarity are you talking about? What qualifies as being "anti-religion"? The answer might be yes or no to either or both questions, but I'm pretty sure it isn't directly relevant to my posts here. For the record, I am not anti-religion if that means that I don't respect that people have the right to believe in whatever they want in their hearts and minds. As soon as their beliefs enter into public discourse, I am anti-religion to the degree that their discourse or behaviour does harm. To that standard, I am mildly anti-religion insofar as it lowers the bar on what is considered reasonable evidence to support a belief in general. I am significantly more anti-religion when religion is used as a justification of heinous acts. I think that's a reasonable and balanced approach for someone who sees no distinction between religion and mythology. I hope that clears that up, and we can stop trying to psychologize me. Fair?

Spirituality or spiritual experiences are about transcendence (of the self), essentially.

Spirituality is the opposite of actuality. It's a hope for something that one wishes to exist mostly in the field of love and peace.

Also found this quote:

“Although most people never overcome the habit of berating the world for their difficulties, those who are too weak to make a stand against reality have no choice but to obliterate themselves by identifying with it. They are never rationally reconciled to civilization. Instead, they bow to it, secretly accepting the identity of reason and domination, of civilization and the ideal, however much they may shrug their shoulders. Well-informed cynicism is only another mode of conformity. These people willingly embrace or force themselves to accept the rule of the stronger as the eternal norm. Their whole life is a continuous effort to suppress and abase nature, inwardly or outwardly, and to identify themselves with its more powerful surrogates—the race, fatherland, leader, cliques, and tradition. For them, all these words mean the same thing—the irresistible reality that must be honored and obeyed. However, their own natural impulses, those antagonistic to the various demands of civilization, lead a devious undercover life within them.”
― Max Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason — Noble Dust

I largely relate to well-informed cynicism, so jump in to point out some problems with this quote. To some degree cynicism is a mode of conformity. But adaptation is a mode of conformity. We conform to the nature of things so that we can eat well, flourish, etc. Non-conformity can be thought of a higher conformity to the nature of things supplanting an obsolete conformity. In the end, the cynic is selfish and personally oriented while the non-cynic or moral-political idealist is (apparently) trans-personally oriented. For the moral idealist, the cynic shirks his duty, the same duty at the heart of the moral idealist's vision of his place in the world.

As far as the "rule of the stronger" goes, there something tautologous going on here. If we view politics as central (as is common with moral idealists), then the stronger are almost by definition those who happen to rule. So we have of course an eternal norm, by definition. The cynic is guilty in the moral idealist's eyes for thinking that human's aren't going to stop being hierarchical anytime soon. The cynic accepts the life is fundamentally struggle. Give a man one thing and he immediately desires something else. The idealist hopes for a stasis over the horizon. Some day there will be a classless society, or a society in tune with nature. For the idealist the world just happens to be out joint. For the cynical, life itself is always out of joint, necessarily unstable and in motion.

The completely bogus line that gives the bias of the author away is:

Their whole life is a continuous effort to suppress and abase nature, inwardly or outwardly, and to identify themselves with its more powerful surrogates—the race, fatherland, leader, cliques, and tradition. For them, these words mean the same thing—the irresistible reality that must be honored and obeyed.

The first part about "debasing" nature is a description of life itself. Of course an organism shapes its environment so that it thrives. Life is obviously a motion against the chaos of its environment. Intellectuals beat a symbolic chaos into shape, just as Horkheimer is trying but largely failing to do here. That such a basic feature of life itself is demonized here seems to reveal the secret conformity at the heart of the quote, a desire to melt into nature. If it is "evil" to "debase" nature and the given, it most be virtuous to melt in to one's environment. Life itself is guilty.

The second part about race, fatherland, etc. is shockingly stupid. It describes the opposite of the cynic. Isn't the cynic exactly the person who scoffs at these sacred abstractions? What gets the moral idealist's goat is that his own cause is one more abstraction and duty on the chopping black. The "back to nature" or "back to a sense of community" song and dance is one more "fatherland" or "race." The cynic enjoys himself as one who does not honor these puffed-up concepts. He may indeed obey laws that he does not believe in. He may indeed play along. He may indeed selfishly adapt to the world as he finds it. In that he is truly guilty in the eyes of the world-fixing idealist. But the racist, the patriot, the ideological reactionary, etc., are not cynics. They are just idealists with a different notion of how to fix the world. The cynic is a thumb in their eyes, too.

The "eclipse of reason" is just the demystification of reason. "Instrumental" reason or pragmatism or the tool-use paradigm all offend in the same way. They make human desire central. Reason is not a replacement for God as it is with Horkheimer perhaps. Instead human desire or feeling is the replacement for God. In short, Horkheimer wants piety toward Reason and Nature. The cynic views both as resources subordinate to life, which is in some sense fundamentally anti-natural and irrational.

It looks like you read the word "cynic" in the quote and based your entire argument from there. If you re-read the quote, "well-informed cynicism" was just one briefly mentioned aspect of the type of person Horkheimer was describing, not the basis of that type of person's views.

has anybody mentioned Romain Rolland's Oceanic Feeling yet? For me, that's as good an attempt as I've seen to capture what spirituality is about.

It appears that some people sometimes experience this feeling and others never do. FromCivilisation and Its Discontents I got the impression that Freud didn't and was maybe even a little frustrated and annoyed that others felt (or [according to him, just] thought they felt?) something that he had never felt and could not imagine.

Human diversity. Vive la différence!

It looks like you read the word "cynic" in the quote and based your entire argument from there. If you re-read the quote, "well-informed cynicism" was just one briefly mentioned aspect of the type of person Horkheimer was describing, not the basis of that type of person's views. — Noble Dust

You may have a point. Maybe he was just sneaking in a jab at the "well informed cynics" ('intellectuals" too selfish to be left-wing) and the rest of the passage was aimed at a fictional ideal dummy. But there are some problems with his argument nevertheless. His fictional dummy or bad guy is "never rationally reconciled to civilization," yet I'm guessing the spirit of this book is itself as odds with the civilization that the author found himself him. His "dummies" are guilty of being too comfortable, which is to say reconciled, though perhaps not articulately. On the other hand, I completely agree that people as a rule identity with race, fatherland, etc., but I'd include communism, critique, etc., as surrogates that also belong on the list. Hork is certainly more sophisticated than the average flag-waving Joe, but he still seems wrapped up in a secular version of religion. This talk of "suppressing and abusing nature" is the give-away. It's more or less anti-human. It's one thing to defend Spaceship Earth as our habitat and life-support system and another thing to personify Nature as a victim. The magical thinking is concentrated there. (I'm more or less neutral on this go-humanity issue. My motive for reacting is largely an aesthetic distaste for the form of his rhetoric, its moves.)

There is a lot of truth in what you're saying. I see so much that disgusts me when I look at religion. However, no one is immune from group think, it's all over the place, and if you think being smart or intelligent makes you immune, think again.

I was involved with the Christian community for more than 40 years, and it's only since I've freed myself from that kind of thinking that I'm able to look at it from an outside position. It's really a feeling of freedom and release, it's like my thinking was locked into a prison.

I still think there is something more to us than just what we physically sense, but I try to base what I believe on evidence not the subjective.

has anybody mentioned Romain Rolland's Oceanic Feeling yet? For me, that's as good an attempt as I've seen to capture what spirituality is about.... — andrewk

...from the outside, so to speak. Rather like a metaphor for the feeling of falling in love, by one who hasn't actually done so. Freud elaborated it as follows:

Freud argues that the "oceanic feeling", if it exists, is the preserved "primitive ego-feeling" from infancy. The primitive ego-feeling precedes the creation of the ego and exists up until the mother ceases breastfeeding. Prior to this, the infant is regularly breastfed in response to its crying and has no concept that the breast does not belong to it. Therefore, the infant has no concept of a "self" or, rather, considers the breast to be part of itself. Freud argues that those experiencing an oceanic feeling as an adult are actually experiencing a preserved primitive ego-feeling.

Of course, this is the only way that Freud could interpret it, as he was a strict materialist and hated anything religious. That is the primary reason that Jung broke away from him.

I'm not opposed to religion. Of course my super intelligence makes me immune to group think. :p