I enjoy a good discussion about spiritual matters. Can be quite enlightening. — 0 thru 9
It seems that to make definitive declarations about the Supreme Being(s) presents potential problems on several sides. — 0 thru 9
I do too, and I think this is the point of departure for me. I agree that a spiritual experience is a deeply personal matter, and that what you call the "ontological" can get legalistic, or what I would call dogmatic. But I don't think this problem means we can't try to at least describe the divine, if not define. I almost think the emphasis on spiritual experience being subjective and personal can become a way to avoid having debates on spiritual topics that actually interface with those experiences (rather than just analyze them). In other words, it seems to be a common approach of those who haven't had any spiritual experiences; emphasize the personal nature of the experience so as to avoid the topic or tacitly dismiss it. Which is fine, if you don't want to discuss it, but I think insisting on the personal nature of the experience can ultimately lead to an idealism that robs the experience of value. Experiences, even personal ones, have value within a social context. "Keep your religion to yourself", while well intentioned, isn't actually how spiritual experiences play out in real life. It's a pesky fact, but it's true.
In fact, most open discussions I've had with people, on or offline about spiritual experiences have been overwhelmingly positive, and usually leave me more with a feeling of solidarity, rather than disagreement, even if they come from different perspectives of faith, or lack thereof. But these are spiritual discussions, not philosophical ones. It makes me wonder what types of discussions are actually worth having. — Noble Dust
The problem is that spirit is "living", in the sense that it's closer to the chest than analysis. A spiritual experience is often something that seems to not be bound by linear time, and, by definition then, also extremely fleeting. We would think something that breaks linear time would feel "timeless", which we associate with "eternity", or something being endless, but the reality is that by the very nature of our experience of time, anything that challenges our perception of time (within experience) is by nature something fleeting. This often leads us to question the validity of the experience, especially with skeptics on the right and the left.
So the safe thing to do is to analyze it and come up with theology. Rules, ways of thinking about the experience in ways that define and categorize. But this process kills the life of the spirit. Or rather, it kills our perception of that life. — Noble Dust
But in all honesty, it seems like most of them are permanently camped out on very thin ice. — 0 thru 9
So the safe thing to do is to analyze it and come up with theology. Rules, ways of thinking about the experience in ways that define and categorize. But this process kills the life of the spirit. Or rather, it kills our perception of that life. — Noble Dust
Apparently religion/spirituality/etc. is a very major concern for quite lot of people, but I have little interest in it. — Terrapin Station
Yes, that is an excellent description of the delicacy of the situation, imho. The molten lava of the experience cools and turns into rock, becomes the ground, or even an entire island. Which is natural and useful. We can build our hut and our village upon it, and share a common understanding and foundation with our neighbors. Meanwhile, the shaman remembers the powerful volcano, even though it looks like just a sleepy peaceful mountain. — 0 thru 9
It seems you spend a lot of time and energy on something that you have little interest in? — Thinker
Of course, I post in the threads, but because this board is so friggin slow with new topics. If I want to post I'll talk about what people are bringing up, but I'd much rather talk about just about anything else other than religion, and I'd never bring religion up if other people weren't talking about it. — Terrapin Station
Obviously I want to post. I enjoy philosophy discussions on the Internet. I just keep hoping that (a) we could be more (inter)active, and (b) we could talk about a much wider variety of topics. — Terrapin Station
I guess I am confused. — Thinker
Do you really think it's identical to change? I — Roke
I'm not primarily saying something about us. — Terrapin Station
I explained everything you need to know already. — Terrapin Station
OK - what are you saying? — Thinker
Anyway, re time, which is something I'm much more interested in, it's identical to change on my view, so it's incoherent to say that one can have a timeless experience. To have an experience you must be aware of or think this, then that, etc., and those are changes, that is time. — Terrapin Station
I had to reread your first post in this thread to get a sense of what you are talking about - my bad. I think time and change go hand in hand; but the question arises - what is time - where does it come from? Who, what, when caused time – where does it come from? This seems like an ontological question. If it is ontological; are we not talking about God again? So, perhaps you do have an interest in God? — Thinker
If you'r comments about time are in reference to what I said about time in relation to spiritual experience, note that I was referring to our experience of time. — Noble Dust
I've had experiences that involve the perception of not experiencing change. — Noble Dust
Where does it come from? The fact that things aren't static. There's no reason to believe that something caused that in my opinion. It's just the way things are. It's a brute fact about the world — Terrapin Station
I've had experiences that involve the perception of not experiencing change. — Noble Dust
is your argument that we should not ask why it is? — Thinker
Not at all. It's just that I don't buy that there is necessarily a cause for everything. I don't think there's any good reason to believe that. — Terrapin Station
The part you're not saying anything about is the interesting part - the extent to which time is something about us. To me, that's more or less the distinction between time and change. Time is a specific category of change; changes we notice. How this mechanism of 'noticing' works, its thresholds, its limitations in either direction, seems like the key to understanding, and perhaps manipulating, time's "speed". — Roke
But again, I mean independent of us. Imagine we don't exist at all. I don't think it's the case that everything necessarily has a cause in that situation. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.