Seems to me that truth is caught up in subjective experience; the two are inextricable.

Meanwhile, if you ask me, all human understanding is coming-to-understand the mind of God -> the "evolution" of consciousness.

Also, seems to me that science must be silent about values. Humans are not silent about values. Hence any proper anthropology must include a value-laden aspect; lastly, it seems difficult to extract values from spirituality.

The juxtaposition of the subjective and objective seems complex in my understanding of philosophy. The idea of the mind of 'God' may involve questions about physics and metaphysics, especially the idea of some spiritual 'being'or'force, imminent or outside of 'nature-.

From my perspective, that is where the idea of 'God' becomes so tricky, especially whether 'God' is imminent or transcendent.

The inner aspects human experience are complex and human values is central to this, especially in the evolution of religion. Here, religion may be seen as the outer expression of human experiences which are bound up with values, especially ethical values.

The juxtaposition of the subjective and objective seems complex in my understanding of philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Agree.

The idea of the mind of 'God' may involve questions about physics and metaphysics — Jack Cummins

Agree.

From my perspective, that is where the idea of 'God' becomes so tricky, especially whether 'God' is imminent or transcendent. — Jack Cummins

Not sure that I see the problem; can you further articulate the problem here?

religion may be seen as the outer expression of human experiences — Jack Cummins

Outer and inner, no?

I guess that part of my philosophy problem.is about the connection between the outer and inner aspects of human understanding. I may be involving an unnecessary diversion between inner and outer aspects. I have been aware of this issue for some time, but part of this seems to come down to the 'dimensions'of human experience. So much hangs on the idea,of what constitutes 'reality'. It is extremely complex, but there may be a bias towards philosophy of realism in the context of scientific understanding.

I think that such a discussion is at high risk of betraying its topic since the very beginning, the same way it is betrayed in most discussions and even academic research about it.

I think that NotAristotle has touched the very core of the question: the deep bond and mix between objectivity and subjectivity.

The betrayal I have talked about is when we deal with the question in analytical ways. An analytical approach means talking about spirituality with a mind, a language, that looks for objectivity, schemes, structures. This is the perfect way to talk about non-spirituality. It is similar to talking about music without listening, without experiencing it. This example actually doesn’t work so much, because music, despite being a very subjective experience, is very compatible with objective analytical talking. I think that spirituality, in this context, goes further: it is not just a subjective experience that can be analyzed with objective structures; more than that, it is radical criticism of every objectification, every analysis. You can describe a melody while still keeping in mind your memory of its acoustic effect produced last time you listened to it. Something similar can be done with spirituality, but I think that, in the case of spirituality, the risk of derailing towards a profound oblivion of the original ongoing experience is much more radical. In other words, I think that subjectivity and objectivity can have a dialogue between each other, but they are also somehow enemies to each other: objectivity has some tendency to drown subjectivity and subjectivity doesn’t like this. The history of religions and spiritualities is a history of conflicts to defend and protect subjectivity from the invasion of objectivity. Analyzing spirituality is a job that needs to be done, but, according to what I said, it needs extreme carefulness, it needs some degree of mistrust towards analysis.

Obviously, subjectivity, on the other side, is highly exposed to ambiguity and even dishonesty, that’s why it needs a dialogue with analysis, but it’s like building a dialogue between two people that a moment earlier have been fighting violently with each other. Both of them have wounds now, they are vulnerable and need attention, patience and respect. Diving too confidently into analysis means repeating again a history of oppression against the extreme delicacy and vulnerability of spirituality.

I think that a good way to deal with this question is by acknowledging, since the very beginning, our awareness and even our intention of keeping spirituality, subjectivity, as an interlocutor that sits at our same table of discussion, rather than as an absent person that we talk about; acknowledging that pure and clean analysis, actually, does not exist, we are always conditioned by our subjectivity, even when we are apparently strictly analytical. I think that, instead of trying to be more and more analytical to avoid confusion and ambiguity, we should instead aknowledge that we are always conditioned by our subjectivity and give it space so that it has its talk, its voice, its free expression.

I think that you are correct in seeing the dichotomy between subjective and objective aspects of understanding. Even the idea of the intersubjective may be a bit 'loose' in this aspect of philosophy.

I do wonder about the issue of being 'analytical'in this area of understanding philosophy and the psychological nature of experience. The conditioned aspects of experiences may be important markers here. Acknowledging the psychological basis of experience and belief may be a starting point. It may come down to being able to separate the various components of belief, in order to understand ideas in fuller depth. This may be where 'spirituality'becones important, in merging psychology and philosophy. Human meaning comes into this complex area of understanding too.

In my opinion the concept of “understanding” is not a good friend of subjectivity and spirituality, because it is based on analysis. I think that spirituality, rather than understanding, is strongly based on experiencing. The value of understanding, when applied to spirituality, gets tranferred into the experience of a progressive and infinite understanding, rather than the value of conquering definitions; definitions would be like weapons to control and dominate spirituality.

I think that, from a psychological perspective, the attitude of wanting to understand, to analyze, to define, to build clear structures, can be accused of being like walls that we try to build to hide our vulnerability, our frustration for being humans full of imperfections, confusion and competition.

A humble attitude could be conceiving understanding and analyzing not as tools to reach strong conclusions, but as games, which we acknoledge that we practice just because we like to play, we need to play, because playing is a psychological need of us.

Once we clarify this, I think that discussions about consciousness become automatically better. Consciousness will always defeat and even ridiculize attempts to understand it because this concept is strongly connected with the exclusive experience of consciousness that each of us has about our own experience of being conscious of our own thinking, our own being ourselves. This cannot be understood by definition, because “understanding” means translating something into shared concepts, while instead consciousness is intimately connected to a side of experience that is exclusive to each of us. “Exclusive” means exactly “not shared, not shareable” and, as such, there cannot be words to express it, because words are based on sharing. This impossibility happens when we want to understand consciousness, but understanding is not the only thing we can do with consciousness and with words. We can share our consciousness by doing things instead of talking about them. This way consciousness becomes instantly shared. If we conceive “understanding” as a game or a music that we like to play, rather than something serious and strict, then understanding spirituality becomes instantly possible, we start immediately touching it, while previously it was like something continuously escaping from our efforts to understand.

The concept of 'understanding' is extremely important because it goes into the inner nature of ideas. It even goes into the territory of 'insight', which is where spirituality and philosophy come together. I am sure that this may be dismissed at times in philosophy but that may be a ''hollow' philosophy, similar to the notion of rhetoric. It is detached from life and living experience. Here, it may be more about rejection or acceptance of 'spirit'as metaphysics, but about the depths of human experience.

To me, "spirituality" can be defined in a couple of different ways: more literally, it has to do with spirits, like the gods, the plant/animal spirits, etc. I think the way people normally mean it is vaguely religous, "im spiritual, but not religous". It often relates to morality and "living the right way" in modern usage.

spirituality, in this context, goes further: it is not just a subjective experience that can be analyzed with objective structures; more than that, it is radical criticism of every objectification, every analysis. — Angelo Cannata

:up: :100:

If we conceive “understanding” as a game or a music that we like to play, rather than something serious and strict, then understanding spirituality becomes instantly possible, we start immediately touching it, while previously it was like something continuously escaping from our efforts to understand. — Angelo Cannata

:up:

Receiving what is there, gazing upon in a receptive way, letting what is present show itself as it is. Not an aggressive -looking at- but a more relaxed sort of noticing. An that, an analogy for understanding versus analyzing.

I am asking about the nature of intuition and reason and such approaches to understanding? — Jack Cummins

I don't think "intuition and reason" are "approaches" but rather are presupposed by "understanding".

What is the significance of the symbolic approach, mythic understanding and how are these bound up with the idea of consciousness and its emergence in the historical development of human consciousness?

Their "significance" is linguistic, or discursive. (See E. Cassirer or G. Lakoff.)

What is human 'consciousness' if it exists and consciousness as qualia?

From an evolutionary perspective, in a nutshell: (non/human) "consciousness" seems to function as arousal, alarm and/or self-awareness.

What does 'consciousness' represent in an understanding and how is this based on the seat of consciousness as a basis for understanding the nature of reality?

"Understanding" – that "the nature of reality" is unconscious – is presupposed (i.e. embodied) by "consciousness".

Spirituality [dis-embodiment / more-than-embodiment] can be regarded as fantasy...

Yes, or hallucinatory. :sparkle:
.

The question may be about what is 'spirit'? Is it disembodied? That is where it gets complicated and bound up with the philosophy of idealism, and the issues of whether mind or matter are the primary aspects of 'reality'. Spirit may be about the 'inner aspects of life', and it can result in the perspective of the inner life as the foundation of everything.

Spirituality and the issue of fantasy is important. Even within the genre of fantasy fiction there are aspects of 'truth' which may be the depths of human understanding. Hallucinary aspects of 'life' are of a different nature to the physical but not to be dismissed. Symbolic dimensions of reality and consciousness are of a different order to the everyday 'reality'. They may be more subtle and , perhaps, grasped better in Eastern metaphysics than in Western 'concrete' ideas, including the dichotomy between embodied and disembodied.