Why should science stop us cooing over the beauty of the universe? As far as I'm concerned, spirituality is a term that refers to a state that is as open to anyone of any belief system as awe and wonder are - and is closely related to both. So, it wouldn't matter if scientists came out and shouted from the rooftops "THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT". Not to them and not to us. Nor should it. The emotional predisposition towards wonder and the sublime is not a slave to the rational mind or anything in it. (Do I need to put that in caps?)

I think the only way to save spirituality when faced with an unsavory picture of reality is to re-define spirituality — darthbarracuda

Perhaps here's a more fair gambit?

Can you provide a definition of what is "spirituality" or what is "spiritual", then we can make a case if that is worth saving in the first place?

I have to be careful here, as I personally lack all qualities of "spirituality" or what is "spiritual" by all common definitions. Beyond a placebo effect of 'self-assumed well being and self-assumed self-importance' I fail to see what these two bring forth that is indeed productive beyond there means of deceptions and distraction.

At the moment, I really fail in being able to come up with a case where "spirituality" or "spiritual" are worth saving, bit maybe you can do better.

In terms of 'impressive'...

... indeed the universe itself has nothing impressive unless we happen to be impressed by it and express that this is the case for us.

After all, we are the agents who place such a value forth known as 'impressive'. I somehow fail to see that anything is in and of itself innately 'impressive', but it does nothing to prevent me from being impressed from time to time.

Until then, a bit of irony, as I find this woman to be very 'impressive' in that she is not 'impressed much':



Meow!

GREG

btw... Psychotick once said something along the lines of "science works from the bottom up and spirituality works from the top down" when it comes to investigating things (I didn't really agree fully with the perspective that science does this exclusively, but anyway...)... it was meant as a defense of the positions and perspective of the spiritual minded, which seemed rather flimsy too me, but anyway... maybe this sort of difference needs to be taken into account?

I did invite Psychotick to join us... (might have been difficult for many to believe that I did that, but one needs other perspectives to consider; thus refining one's own perspective... anyway.)

All life is impressionable, and all life is part of the universe/nature, therefore Nature is in part impressionable. Nature changes and with the coming of man, an infinitesimal part of Nature becomes self-aware.

What does it mean to be a man, to be self-aware? I think it means that something has arisen from matter, which depends intrinsically on matter, is enchained to matter, yet rises beyond matter. How can anything anything rise from matter? How do we connect with matter, where is that connection. Science chases after this connection, we live it, but we don't live it alone, it is always with other men, who we rely on, love, hate, play...

We are always with others, the majority of what we know is based on what others have learn't and taught us. I think spirit is in connection with others, from our emphatic relationship with others, without which there is no 'we'.

Spirituality, to me, at base, is about soul maintenance. It's about keeping in healthy spirits. Art, and things that focus on the qualitative, rather than the quantitative are simply superior disciplines towards these ends.

When scientists go on about the awe of being insignificant, this is just a counter-cultural move against religions, and their often stated opinions that religious views and people like to place themselves and humans as the center of the universe, and importance. It is a one upping ethical move, combined with a misunderstanding of impersonal directed focus as a sort of quasi-spiritual selflessness. Or confusing lack of concern, and energy spent focused on the self, as being a humble, enlightened behavior in itself.

There's no incompatibility between taking care of your soul, and practicing, or being interested in science.

I don't know what "innately impressive" means, not even when it is capitalized, nor do I know why it matters whether or not the universe has this characteristic. So, Ligotti may sodomize himself in an innately impressive manner as possible as far as I'm concerned.

"Spirituality" is not a problem if one is conventionally religious. Maybe a billion of us are not conventionally religious, or are not religious at all, and for us "spirituality" may have no ready-made clear meaning. (Actually, it can be a source of confusion for the religious as well.)

"There is nothing innately impressive about the universe or anything in it" is merely the desiccated diarrhea of the dreariest shriveled up materialist. Sad.

We can claim to have "spirit" and "spirituality" without invoking God or the numinous. Spirituality is both an emotional and intellectual experience: we feel (love, pain, exaltation, humiliation, etc.) and we make and apprehend meaning. Our thoughts and emotions are intimately linked, and therein is the source of secular spirituality.

We may all have "spirit" but not all of us are "spiritual". One can close off ones self from unwanted feelings and thoughts, and the most severely shriveled personalities may not be able to tolerate even hear numinous terms bandied about.
What is a spirit? Leaving out deities and distillates we have these:

• an animating or vital principle... (like "life")
• temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated... ("enthused" from Greek enthousiasmos, from enthousiazein, to be inspired by a god, filled with the breath of a god)
• the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
• the activating or essential principle influencing a person
• an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind; a mood
• a special attitude or frame of mind
• the feeling, quality, or disposition characterizing something
• a lively or brisk quality in a person or a person's actions
• a person having a character or disposition of a specified nature
• a mental disposition characterized by firmness or assertiveness
• prevailing tone or tendency
• general intent or real meaning

Spirituality is simply the process of introspection, introspection about one's self, one's self as being and being in the world. Organized religions I believe don't understand that. If spirituality is not about being and being in the world, certainly it is not about the supernatural, if it is not tangible, it is not spirituality. This is not science or religion, but religion is the only of the two that would have difficulty with it.

One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first crush. — _db

Is there any more substance to this than "scientists getting all TED talk gooey over the image of nature they have in their heads is a bit cringe?". I mean, it's a bit cringe for me, but that's only because I'm close enough to being it...

re-define spirituality — _db

Spiritual or mystical just pertains to things that transcend the senses and or mind. It is relative to that. So in actual reality there is no difference between "matter" or "spirit".

To my jaundiced (third) eye ...

The spiritual mood trusts without seeking.

The artistic mood seeks to familiarize the strange and/or estrange the familiar.

The religious mood seeks unquestionable (i.e. infallible) answers to trust.

The philosophical mood seeks more probative questions from less probative questions for examining 'biases, assumptions, conventions, ideas, solutions, conduct ...'

The scientific mood seeks problems (empirical answers to conceptual questions) to solve.

The political mood seeks eusocial resolutions to anti-social conflicts through compromise, commerce, corruption and/or war.

I.e. spirituality : science :: ego-loss : entropy.

“One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first crush. From the studies of Krafft-Ebbing onward, we know that it is possible to become excited about anything—from shins to shoehorns. But it would be nice if just one of these gushing eggheads would step back and, as a concession to objectivity, speak the truth: THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT.” — Thomas Ligotti

Amen to that.

... as a concession to objectivity, speak the truth: THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT” — Thomas Ligotti

... including Ligotti (I'm a fan). :mask:

... including Ligotti (I'm a fan). :mask: — 180 Proof

Hi Proof! :up:

I really can't see why a sexist put down of human experts enjoying what they study is the position to have. Yes, we could eliminate the word impressive from our vocabulary, but it seems to me their passion and cooing is informative. Many other humans will react similarly when they too experience the subtlties and patterns that experts notice and find.
Informative about what many of us will experience, that is.

If they put it in a peer-reviewed article as some central thesis or conclusion, well it won't pass muster.

I don't see why scientists need to cut out their own limbic systems or pretend they are not in awe when they are.

If you are a pure physicalist, saying you have a spirituality, it seems to me, would be strange. You could have an ethics, you could have a philosophy. But spirituality points towards a dualism or at least a spectrum that includes things not now verified by science.. Yes, originally the word comes from 'the breath', but it came to mean to do with the non-corporeal. And to say you have a breath attitude would be more or less meaningless. I would think physicalists would be more consistant saying they have a philosophy or view of life. Of course, some scientists are not physicalists, and there the term might be accurate or consistant.

My question is simple: If it doesn't matter, it doesn't seem to, that humanity be grouped into various factions holding opposing, contradictory beliefs, why can't one individual also be allowed the same privilege? The issue of compatibility as pertains to the OP in particular and to various systems of beliefs is, I think, moot!

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. — Ralph Waldo Emerson

If tensions, conflicts and irresolvable dilemmas are the spice of every culture, a human who belongs to any particular culture must hold contradictory beliefs and be riven by incompatible values. It's such an essential feature of any culture that it even has a name: cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is often considered a failure of the human psyche. In fact, it is a vital asset. Had people been unable to hold contradictory beliefs and values, it would probably have been impossible to establish and maintain any human culture. — Yuval Noah Harari

LOL

I really can't see why a sexist put down of human experts enjoying what they study is the position to have. Yes, we could eliminate the word impressive from our vocabulary, but it seems to me their passion and cooing is informative. Many other humans will react similarly when they too experience the subtlties and patterns that experts notice and find.
Informative about what many of us will experience, that is.
..........I don't see why scientists need to cut out their own limbic systems or pretend they are not in awe when they are. — Bylaw

Hi Bylaw.
I agree that Ligotti was a bit harsh - how dare him mentioning gender in his tirade!
But that aside, and if it would make you feel better that I should have discarded that part when I quoted him, that's what I should have done. So duly noted for your reference.

Reading that Ligotti quote, he is expressing the notion of scientific objectivity which he thinks should preclude spiritual awe in their work. I believe this is a critic of professional responsibility as it is of attitude. But that they do it -- while delivering their expert observations -- is what perhaps bothers him. In this regard, if we're going to take their words as experts in science, spare us the subjective spirituality they express. This is not to say they must suppress this feeling. Not at all.