I was wrong that he was critizing the way i said it and not what i said? — Wosret

Is that what you consider just being an asshole to be? I wouldn't use quite so inflammatory language.

I agree with Reformed Nihilist that they're not wholly separate things in this case. What you said was notable in what it lacked.

I dont understand categories, and every use of them is necessarily hasty, because everything is specially unique and uncomparable, yet at the same time all meaning is lexical and always reduced to categorical reasoning... and these are just rhetorical strategies that although clearly contradict... and im agreeing with and denying both principles as it suits me... you though... youre wrong when you do it.

Yeah, when im not appealing to caesar humbly enough... and thats supposed to say anyrhing other than "i dont like what your sayin, but i got nothing so youre a bad person"?

Ignore me then. Checking my hehaviour is fun and all...

Kudos to you for that; it's rare to find atheists around here with that mindset. — Noble Dust

I'm quite certain I don't come across as humble or open-minded as that, but I nevertheless don't go as far as ruling that out.

Ok; kudos to you too then.

Ok; kudos to you too then. — Noble Dust

You should be careful who you dish out kudos to. It might go to their head. :D

Bah, as if the kudos of a spiritual-something-a-rather-ist means anything to such a staunch atheist. :P

It's a nice quote, but overquoted. It's actually a tautology. But I don't know, maybe that was his point. But I'm not saying that there's something to described that can't be described; there's something to be described that illudes proper description in the way that rational or analytic philosophy demands. If these rational demands are the demands you place on experience, then the concept of spirituality will illude you, let alone the experience of it. — Noble Dust

First, yes, I think that was his point. Maybe not in it's entirety, but encapsulated, I think it was.

Second, do you mean elude, as in evade, or illude, as in trick? Seeing as though you can't trick proper description, I'll assume you mean elude. It might not even be an important distinction.

So why are it that there are all sorts of other concepts, like the concepts of "properties" or "consciousness", slippery concepts, that people can have disagreements about the finer points of, but that can be succinctly defined in one or two sentences satisfactorily? Why would you propose that spirituality would be different? How is that not just special pleading?

We do have that; I was affirming Barri's descriptions as something I share (that may not have been obvious). That doesn't mean we can define those shared experiences in the same way we define our experience of "when I hit my knee on the table, it hurts". — Noble Dust

How do you know that you share the experience? What specifically did he write that made you say "yup, that's the same thing for me"? Explain that to me please. Maybe I also share the experience. The way most people talk about spirituality, it seems as though it is part of the universal human condition, so I don't know what makes me such a dummy about it.

That's my point about "living" words and "dead" dictionaries. I think it applies when we're trying to pin down an illusive concept like "spirituality". As Worset mentioned, the root of the word is "breathe"; another metaphor, or an original likeness? — Noble Dust

I understand how metaphors work, thanks. I'm asking what's so dead about asking for someone to be succinct, and what's so alive about being vague and self-contradictory? That's what I was doing when I asked about a dictionary style definition. So I guess I'm trying to point out that your metaphor wasn't apt. It wasn't relevant to my request.

Fine, have you had a look at mine? — Noble Dust

Nope, must have missed it.

Second, do you mean elude, as in evade, or illude, as in trick? Seeing as though you can't trick proper description, I'll assume you mean elude. It might not even be an important distinction. — Reformed Nihilist

I meant elude, sorry.

So why are it that there are all sorts of other concepts, like the concepts of "properties" or "consciousness", slippery concepts, that people can have disagreements about the finer points of, but that can be succinctly defined in one or two sentences satisfactorily? Why would you propose that spirituality would be different? How is that not just special pleading? — Reformed Nihilist

You continue to ignore the definition I offered in my first response to you. Maybe you missed it? Here it is:

Spirituality: The inner life of the outer experience of the world.

From that first post, I've argued that the definition is elusive, but I then (in that same post) proceeded to offer that definition regardless. You seem to be reading past all of this, or else I wasn't clear enough.

How do you know that you share the experience? What specifically did he write that made you say "yup, that's the same thing for me"? — Reformed Nihilist

Pretty much his whole post, but for instance:

It's the feeling of being almost-at-home, but not quite, as if you're approaching some big discovery and part of the deal is that it's mysterious, and that once you finally arrive it'll all make sense, including why it had to be mysterious in the first place. — darthbarracuda

The feeling of "almost-at-home" is an experience that I find myself having a lot, especially when writing music. I experienced it when I used to be a Christian (I have a lot of positive memories of that time as well as the negative). I've experienced it when reading other religious texts and philosophical texts, including atheist ones. I've experienced it in meditation (something I'm horrible at, but even still). I've experienced it in dreams, and, most poignantly of all, in the moments after waking up after a restorative, dreamless sleep. Laugh all you like, or analyze all you like. There's your answer.

I understand how metaphors work, thanks. — Reformed Nihilist

I didn't assume you didn't; I was explaining why I was placing importance on that idea, particularly with some ideas from Barfield that I assumed you wouldn't be familiar with because most people aren't.

I'm asking what's so dead about asking for someone to be succinct, and what's so alive about being vague and self-contradictory? — Reformed Nihilist

If you mean "what's so dead about asking for someone to be succinct, and what's so alive about words having elusive meanings", then I'll answer, but otherwise you're setting up an annoying strawman there.

Spirituality: the inner life of the outer world of experience.

From that first post, I've argued that the definition is elusive, but I then (in that same post) proceeded to offer that definition regardless. You seem to be reading past all of this, or else I wasn't clear enough. — Noble Dust

Sorry, I did miss that.

In what way do you mean "inner" and "outer"? Do you mean to make the distinction between subjective and objective, public and private, or material and immaterial?

The feeling of "almost-at-home" is an experience that I find myself having a lot, especially when writing music. I experienced it when I used to be a Christian (I have a lot of positive memories of that time as well as the negative). I've experienced it when reading other religious texts and philosophical texts, including atheist ones. I've experienced it in meditation (something I'm horrible at, but even still). I've experienced it in dreams, and, most poignantly of all, in the moments after waking up after a dreamless sleep. Laugh all you like, or analyze all you like. There's your answer. — Noble Dust

I was a christian, I meditate, I write music (though not in a while). I dream. I have had pleasant experiences with all of those things, but "almost at home" doesn't describe those experiences in a meaningful way to me. What does being at home feel like in this metaphor? What does being far from home feel like? I would normally describe some of those feelings as feeling like being at home, as they offer comfort, like home does. I might, inversely describe them as feeling like being away from home, as they might take me out of a conscious awareness of myself and my thoughts and feelings (away from home because they are different from my baseline condition, "where I live"). So I'm missing how these things are "almost at home". Perhaps you could try to describe why that metaphor was meaningful to you? Why you think that darthbarracuda was actually talking about the feeling you get when you do those things, and not an entirely different feeling that he/she gets.

If you mean "what's so dead about asking for someone to be succinct, and what's so alive about words having elusive meanings", then I'll answer, but otherwise you're setting up an annoying strawman there. — Noble Dust

No strawman intended. I made a specific request for succinctness, and you used a metaphor that characterized what I was asking for as negative ("dead, musty") and what you are now speaking of as elusive as good ("alive"). I'm rejecting that characterization. Succinctness is good, and vagueness is bad when discussing concepts. I will even submit that you might be making an attribution error here. Perhaps it isn't the concept that is vague, but your use of it. Can you actually make the distinction between an elusive concept and a poorly considered one (honest question)? I'm not sure I can tell the difference between my poorly considered concepts and objectively elusive concepts.

I submit that it could be that the term is a functional placeholder for it's religious precursor (of or pertaining to the spirit/soul or spirit world), and allows the user to hold onto elements of a religious worldview (mind/body dualism most obviously, but not exclusively) without making an intellectual commitment to them.

Add on edit: I wonder if it's also a placeholder for a belief in "intentionality magic", which is conceptually tied to religious mind/body dualism, but not one and the same. What I mean by intentionality magic, is the intuition that if we believe something strongly enough, desire it enough, or think/feel about it in the right way, we can cause it to happen. It's a fairly common intuition, and practices like prayer are it's religious manifestation.

In what way do you mean "inner" and "outer"? Do you mean to make the distinction between subjective and objective, public and private, or material and immaterial? — Reformed Nihilist

It's hard to describe. Haha, sorry, here come some more vague definitions. I'll try to make it as clear as I can. I consider the subject/object distinction to be largely misleading. It has so many connotations, and it's hard to keep track of them. Public/private is, to me, one expression of it, but neither encapsulate my idea. The same goes for material/immaterial. I like inner/outer as the metaphor for the concept because it doesn't say anything about material/immaterial; there's no difference in the philosophical sense (subject/object); and it's not limited to experience (public/private). It also doesn't describe anything in relation to our experience of time (before/after), and it doesn't place things within a hierarchy (under/over). Inner/outer works with words and their changing meanings, as I've mentioned, it works when analyzing the "inner" philosophy that drives the "outer" world of events (politics, technology, science, art). So, inner applies to both individuals, and the human condition in general.

That's the long form version that you probably found frustrating...sorry. The best succinct version for now would be: Inner/outer, subject/object, public/private, are all dualistic expressions of a single reality that exists underneath everyday perception. I still struggle with even that concept though, because I still wrestle with whether I'm a dualist of any sort.

What does being at home feel like in this metaphor? — Reformed Nihilist

Closer to that one reality I mentioned; closer to the truth. Closer to my own inner being, the "inner" seed that exists inside the husk of the disingenuous "outer" me. Closer to everything. All of this is apprehended through intuition, which is a spiritual faculty.

I might, inversely describe them as feeling like being away from home, as they might take me out of a conscious awareness of myself and my thoughts and feelings (away from home because they are different from my baseline condition, "where I live"). — Reformed Nihilist

I think what you describe as far from home here might be closer to what I mean by closer to home. Or else that's where the metaphor stops working. Being "out of one's self" in the sense of meditation or what have you, is, to me, the same sort of experience that lends itself often to the metaphor of feeling close to home, but that metaphor doesn't actually encompass all instances of the feeling.

Perhaps you could try to describe why that metaphor was meaningful to you? Why you think that darthbarracuda was actually talking about the feeling you get when you do those things, and not an entirely different feeling that he/she gets. — Reformed Nihilist

There is a "private" nature to it as well, yes. One of the most poignant experiences of the feeling of close to home that I've had is a very private recurring vision-like experience I've had. It would be laughable to describe it, because it is a private experience that I doubt others share. Instead, I sneak it into a song whenever I can. But how do I know whether the intuitive feeling of that experience isn't like what others feel? Indeed, the feeling of the experience is the "coming home" feeling, which appears to be something others share, so whether or not the particulars (the vision-like/metaphorical elements of my own particular experience) are the same as for others isn't important. The metaphorical, vision-like elements are what describe the feeling (btw, not emotion) of the experience, and that's the significant part. That's the part we can communicate about, freeing us of having to "remain silent" about it, ala Wittgenstein. Contrary to what Witty says, we can begin by asking each other "hey, have you ever felt or experienced something like this?" One could even, ironically, take it to a scientific extreme and ask every person you can. If you find just one person who says "yes"...then, as far as I'm concerned, we don't have to "remain silent". That may have been a tangent.

I'm rejecting that characterization. Succinctness is good, and vagueness is bad when discussing concepts. — Reformed Nihilist

Ok, but what I'm saying is succinctness often pinpoints concepts into a changeless state within which they don't actually exist. I like succinctness too, but in my view it only has temporal value; you can't pursue succinctness to the point of total, complete accuracy, because once you pinpoint the idea like an insect unto a board, the concept, like the insect, is dead. Now you can examine it and analyze it, but that work will only tell you about how the insect/concept functioned, past tense.

Are you saying my ideas are vague? (honest question). Because I keep using the word "elusive", and you keep using the word "vague".

Perhaps it isn't the concept that is vague, but your use of it. — Reformed Nihilist

I would suggest that the concept of spirituality isn't vague, but that most if not all attempts to describe it end in vagueness, and I don't have a problem with this. It also doesn't stop me from trying to be less vague when I talk about it. But I place my intuitive experience of this concept above my rational analysis of it, as I do elsewhere.

Can you actually make the distinction between an elusive concept and a poorly considered one (honest question)? I'm not sure I can tell the difference between my poorly considered concepts and objectively elusive concepts. — Reformed Nihilist

Sure, it's hard to say. I try to think about all of these things as clearly as I'm able, but how do I know there's not an entirely other level of clearer thinking that I haven't yet or will never attain? I don't want to let this stop me from trying to think as clearly as I can about these concepts within my abilities. There's no use letting that possibility lead to inaction here.

I submit that it could be that the term is a functional placeholder for it's religious precursor (of or pertaining to the spirit/soul or spirit world), and allows the user to hold onto elements of a religious worldview (mind/body dualism most obviously, but not exclusively) without making an intellectual commitment to them. — Reformed Nihilist

Ok, can you make an argument about this, then? Maybe you did and I missed it.

That's the long form version that you probably found frustrating...sorry. The best succinct version for now would be: Inner/outer, subject/object, public/private, are all dualistic expressions of a single reality that exists underneath everyday perception. I still struggle with even that concept though, because I still wrestle with whether I'm a dualist of any sort. — Noble Dust

Yup. because the statement "a single reality that exists underneath everyday perception" still implies a duality between "the real" and "the perceived". Dualism isn't inherently wrong, but one should consider the logical implications of adopting it.

Closer to that one reality I mentioned; closer to the truth. Closer to my own inner being, the "inner" seed that exists inside the husk of the disingenuous "outer" me. Closer to everything. All of this is apprehended through intuition, which is a spiritual faculty. — Noble Dust

That sounds like mind/body dualism.The idea that your body isn't you (it's a husk), and that the "real" you is some sort of ephemeral being that is pulling all the levers of your meat machine body. The problem is that there is abundant evidence that suggests otherwise, and there are philosophical problems with the idea in itself. For the philosophical problems, if mind and body are distinct and separate, then there's no way to account for the mind having an effect on the body (and if they interact, why do we need the duality, why can't it all be just body?).

From an empirical standpoint, we can prod at the meat machine in such a way as to produce predictable result in terms of perception, intentionality, self-identity and personality. All the things that go into what we consider the "real" us. Turn off one part of the brain, and we don't feel like we're in our body (LSD does that), stimulate another part of the brain and cause laughter or tears. When our brain malfunctions we can loose the ability to have empathy, believe we can see when we're actually blind. We can be tricked into thinking we are not in our bodies, or into remembering things that never occurred.

All of this seems to imply that all of those properties that were once ascribed to an otherworldly spirit are actually properties of a hunk of grey stuff in your skull. So just like the god of the gaps keeps shrinking, the more you know about how the universe works, it seems to me that the ephemeral spirit that runs the show shrinks the more you know about the brain.

Ok, but what I'm saying is succinctness often pinpoints concepts into a changeless state within which they don't actually exist. I like succinctness too, but in my view it only has temporal value; you can't pursue succinctness to the point of total, complete accuracy, because once you pinpoint the idea like an insect unto a board, the concept, like the insect, is dead. Now you can examine it and analyze it, but that work will only tell you about how the insect/concept functioned, past tense. — Noble Dust

How about we use present tense and talk about what you mean right now when you're using it? I'd be happy with pinpointing it to that degree. If you really want to change your definition in mid discussion (which would be a weird thing to do), just point it out an give me a new succinct definition. I don't know why there is such a fuss over this.

Are you saying my ideas are vague? (honest question). Because I keep using the word "elusive", and you keep using the word "vague". — Noble Dust

I don't know what your ideas are. I am saying your descriptions are vague. If clarity eludes you, that would account for the vagueness. I'm not even sure what the property of "elusiveness" would mean in regards to a concept, excepting that eludes you, which also means you don't have a firm grasp on it.

I would suggest that the concept of spirituality isn't vague, but that most if not all attempts to describe it end in vagueness, and I don't have a problem with this. — Noble Dust

So all the descriptions people make are vague, but the concept is a clear and well defined one? What makes you arrive at that conclusion? Wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that if no one seems able to speak clearly about a concept, then the concept is ill-defined? If not, by what mechanism is the concept of spirituality immune from clarity, yet everyone believes that they are talking about the exact same thing? Is there also a form of telepathy involved, where you just know what someone is saying regardless of their vagueness?

Or might it be that people are engaging in performative language rituals? I use "spiritual" as a placeholder, and when questioned speak in vagaries, and you also want to hold onto the notion, so you see in it whatever you need to, in order to maintain some aspect of your worldview or sense of self-identity?

It also doesn't stop me from trying to be less vague when I talk about it. But I place my intuitive experience of this concept above my rational analysis of it, as I do elsewhere. — Noble Dust

What is the difference between intuitive experience and just regular experience, and why does it offer more insight than rational analysis? Is there any way to tell the difference between intuition and self-delusion?

Sure, it's hard to say. I try to think about all of these things as clearly as I'm able, but how do I know there's not an entirely other level of clearer thinking that I haven't yet or will never attain? I don't want to let this stop me from trying to think as clearly as I can about these concepts within my abilities. There's no use letting that possibility lead to inaction here. — Noble Dust

Inaction isn't my suggestion. My suggestion is to compare your hypothesis with mine, and evaluate them.

Your's is that there is such a thing as spirituality, but something (but you don't know what?) about the nature of that thing prevents it from being clearly described or defined. If I am correct, you seem to be saying that the elusiveness is an actual property of the thing that is spirituality. I think I have that right, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Mine is that where people find concepts difficult to describe clearly or define, in every other case I can think of, the cause for this inability was 1) the speaker in question didn't have a clear grasp on the concept, and in sometimes this is because 2) the concept is intentionally ill defined. We know that as humans, we regularly hold onto ill defined conceptions of things, and those things often only become more clearly defined, or are discarded, when we are pushed to think about them more carefully, either in discussion, or because of some event in one's life that creates a cognitive dissonance that needs to be rectified.

So given those two possible explanations for the events of this discussion, I'm asking you to rationally appraise the merits of each hypothesis. Surely in most cases my first hypothesis is correct, right? Why is this situation different?

That sounds like mind/body dualism.The idea that your body isn't you (it's a husk), and that the "real" you is some sort of ephemeral being that is pulling all the levers of your meat machine body. — Reformed Nihilist

I didn't mean mind/body dualism, I mean something more akin to the Hindu idea of the Self (Brahman) being higher than (i'd say inside of) the Ego, or the outer self. I've had experiences of being aware of that distinction. And so it's become one of my beliefs, because of my experience. The physical body is just a further outer husk.

(and if they interact, why do we need the duality, why can't it all be just body?). — Reformed Nihilist

Because "just body" doesn't account for the existential reality of our experience; It doesn't account for ethics, morality, and the whole project of conscious human life in general. "Just body" shows how without showing why.

And a counter question, if the two interact, why would it have to be just body in that case? Two things interacting doesn't equate to it really just being one thing (the one you want it to be, it seems). This is why hard either/or dualism fails for me; it's not a question of separate metaphysical realities, it's a problem of generative metaphysical realities; the materialist view you're referencing studies the brain and concludes that matter generates mind, but I find this incoherent because it's inherently hard nihilism. If matter generates mind, then nothing has content; all content is a facade. Not only is religion an ivory tower, but any belief system, including atheism or materialism, is an ivory tower. If this is the case, then debate is useless. If debating is worthwhile, it must have content, and that type of content (metaphysical content I guess I would call it) can't ultimately be a by-product of matter, because then the content has no referent other than itself, which is nihilistic. If senseless matter generated functional mind, and functional mind generated meaningful ideas, how can you say the ideas are actually meaningful? They're just meaningful in relation to each other, which means not at all. That sort of relativism doesn't lead to any agreement; it in fact assumes total nihilism and meaninglessness. Total agreement about nihilistic relativity would mean nothingness.

How about we use present tense and talk about what you mean right now when you're using it? — Reformed Nihilist

When I use what? Present tense? "Succinct"? You're kind of moving the goal posts here as well; this isn't a response to what you quoted.

If you really want to change your definition in mid discussion (which would be a weird thing to do), just point it out an give me a new succinct definition. I don't know why there is such a fuss over this. — Reformed Nihilist

My definition of what? Where did I do this?...

I'm not even sure what the property of "elusiveness" would mean in regards to a concept, excepting that eludes you, which also means you don't have a firm grasp on it. — Reformed Nihilist

You don't think there are any elusive concepts then? Earlier you referenced

So why are it that there are all sorts of other concepts, like the concepts of "properties" or "consciousness", slippery concepts, that people can have disagreements about the finer points of, — Reformed Nihilist

Is this also because those people don't have a firm grasp of the concepts, or is it because the concepts are elusive? Or try another word, since you don't seem to like that one: "slippery", as you said yourself. The metaphor of slippery seems to suggest something that's hard to grasp.

If not, by what mechanism is the concept of spirituality immune from clarity, yet everyone believes that they are talking about the exact same thing? — Reformed Nihilist

It's not immune to clarity; I said "most if not all descriptions" as a qualifier; I'm not ruling out the possibility of a clearer description, but I'm acknowledging that there's less clarity about the topic. Clarity about spirituality comes not from discursive definitions, or pinpointing things in a seemingly scientific manner; I think it can come from studying religions, practicing spiritual practices, looking for similarities between them (and differences). It's experiential, and not empirical, which I've been arguing all along.

see in it whatever you need to, in order to maintain some aspect of your worldview or sense of self-identity? — Reformed Nihilist

No, my ideas about spirituality are based in experience.

What is the difference between intuitive experience and just regular experience, and why does it offer more insight than rational analysis? Is there any way to tell the difference between intuition and self-delusion? — Reformed Nihilist

Intuition is what injects anything with meaning, including the idea that "self-delusion" would be a bad thing (which you rightly insinuate here). But no, of course a self-deluded person would not know they were self-deluded. You're setting up a tautology that seems to insinuate that I'm self-deluded for having spiritual beliefs. If I were self-deluded about spirituality, I wouldn't know it, just as if you were self-deluded about your lack of belief in spirituality, you wouldn't know it.

If I am correct, you seem to be saying that the elusiveness is an actual property of the thing that is spirituality. I think I have that right, but correct me if I'm wrong. — Reformed Nihilist

Elusiveness may be a property of our experience of spirituality; it seems so in general, but I'm not definitively labeling it a property. But it seems to be predictably so. But the sages and teachers of religions claim to have had clear pictures, and their claims gel with the mere glimpses that I've had. It's like watching a great pianist and realizing that that same greatness could be latent in my fingers too; my experience of playing the piano somewhat badly still gives me the glimpse of what it could be like to be the virtuoso. And I fervently believe that if I practiced piano as much as the virtuoso does, I would arrive at that same level. The same applies to spirituality.

Mine is that where people find concepts difficult to describe clearly or define, in every other case I can think of, the cause for this inability was 1) the speaker in question didn't have a clear grasp on the concept, and in sometimes this is because 2) the concept is intentionally ill defined. — Reformed Nihilist

Again, you find no other concepts are difficult to describe clearly other than spirituality? Really?

So given those two possible explanations for the events of this discussion, I'm asking you to rationally appraise the merits of each hypothesis. Surely in most cases my first hypothesis is correct, right? Why is this situation different? — Reformed Nihilist

I already said I don't use rationality to appraise experience, at least not primarily. I don't play by the same rules that you do here. Can you make a case for why I have to play by your rules? Also, as to your explanations:

1) assumes that all concepts can be firmly grasped. I disagree. The development of human thought constantly reevaluates concepts and assumptions; everything from science, to theoretical physics, to diet, to theological problems, to philosophical problems, to art theory. Everything is constantly in a state of change and development. Once a concept is grasped, it seems to change (i.e. my analogy of the insect). So the assumption you make in 1) is wrong; you would need to address that assumption.

2) intentionally ill-defined as in to purposefully obfuscate meaning? Who does that in philosophical discussions? I suppose some people probably do. Are you saying religious people do that in order to hold on to their beliefs?

Because "just body" doesn't account for the existential reality of our experience; It doesn't account for ethics, morality, and the whole project of conscious human life in general. "Just body" shows how without showing why. — Noble Dust

To some extent it does. No theory perfectly accounts for all phenomena, but an "all body" approach is 100% consistent with all of these phenomena. There's nothing that can't in principle be explained by it. We can account for primate ethics without appealing to a dualistic model.There are dozens, probably hundreds of models of ethics that don't require dualism.

And a counter question, if the two interact, why would it have to be just body in that case? — Noble Dust

I doesn't have to be, but it's less parsimonious. You have to start inventing a mechanism by which the body and mind interact, yet that disallows them from being the same thing. Every layer you add just makes a more complex model that doesn't actually account for any more variables.

It also opens up an infinite regression. If there needs to be a something pulling the levers of our body, then why doesn't there need to be a something to pull it's levers? Why doesn't the self have a deeper self, and so on? Before you answer "maybe it does", I just have to point out that there is a difference between a good explanation and a bad one, and it isn't just based on which one resonates with you. The "it's all selfs, all the way down" is a bad explanation, because it adds infinite variables without adding any explanatory value. Mind body dualism is a bad explanation for the same reason, just to a lesser degree.

On top of that, you have to account for the physical evidence. I'm sure it's possible to come up with a hand waving explanation for any given bit of physical evidence, but again, it's not the most parsimonious explanation. Consider the alternatives again:

Facts: Physically affecting the brain can alter intentionality, personality, perception, self-identity, memory, and even morality and all the things that people historically associated with the soul or spirit in repeatable and predictable ways.

Hypothesis 1: The brain is actually the source of all of these things. The self is a cultural holdover from days when we didn't know what we now do about the brain.

Hypothesis 2: There is an immeasurable "self", that interacts with the body in an unknown way, using an unknown mechanism. To the best evidence, people would behave in exactly the same way wiithout it, but it exists.

Which hypothesis makes more sense? Or what is your hypothesis that accounts for all the evidence but includes mind/body dualism?

Intuition is what injects anything with meaning, including the idea that "self-delusion" would be a bad thing (which you rightly insinuate here). — Noble Dust

Ok, can we try a simple definition again, or is this another word that magically can't be defined?

But no, of course a self-deluded person would not know they were self-deluded. You're setting up a tautology that seems to insinuate that I'm self-deluded for having spiritual beliefs. If I were self-deluded about spirituality, I wouldn't know it, just as if you were self-deluded about your lack of belief in spirituality, you wouldn't know it. — Noble Dust

I'm not setting up a tautology, I'm asking you if you have any means to discriminate intuitions from self-delusions. I don't. That's why I don't trust intuitions. That's why I turn to structured reasoning (logic), public discourse, and empirical evidence. None of them rely on my intuitions, and if done diligently, they stand a chance to overcome the sorts of natural foibles (biases and fallacies) that I and all other people are subject to committing, and that can lead to wrong (and in some cases harmfully so) answers.

It's not immune to clarity; I said "most if not all descriptions" as a qualifier; I'm not ruling out the possibility of a clearer description, but I'm acknowledging that there's less clarity about the topic. Clarity about spirituality comes not from discursive definitions, or pinpointing things in a seemingly scientific manner; I think it can come from studying religions, practicing spiritual practices, looking for similarities between them (and differences). It's experiential, and not empirical, which I've been arguing all along. — Noble Dust

So now we're going to have to clarify what clarity means? I'm not asking you how I can get in touch with my spirit, I'm asking you if you can clearly define the word "spirit", as you mean it, when you speak.

If you cannot clearly define it, I am left to assume that either it is your failing or a property of the thing. Either it defies definition, or you don't have a firm grasp on the word you're using. One of these explanations seems more likely to me.

Again, you find no other concepts are difficult to describe clearly other than spirituality? Really? — Noble Dust

Only one's I don't have a firm grasp on. I generally assume that if I can't describe a concept, that's my failing, not a feature of the concept. I'm pretty sure that's true (I haven't gone through every concept I know to test that). Did you have a concept in mind?

Elusiveness may be a property of our experience of spirituality; it seems so in general, but I'm not definitively labeling it a property. But it seems to be predictably so. — Noble Dust

Ok. So your conjecture is that it's a property of the thing, not a failure of the speaker? Then I go back to my two hypotheses and ask you to consider them.

But the sages and teachers of religions claim to have had clear pictures, and their claims gel with the mere glimpses that I've had. It's like watching a great pianist and realizing that that same greatness could be latent in my fingers too; my experience of playing the piano somewhat badly still gives me the glimpse of what it could be like to be the virtuoso. And I fervently believe that if I practiced piano as much as the virtuoso does, I would arrive at that same level. — Noble Dust

Well, in regards to playing piano, the evidence would suggest that you are incorrect. Do you think it is wise to hold a belief "fervently" that is both contrary to the evidence, and seems to only be based on your feeling that it is the case? Mightn't it make more sense to follow the conclusions that the evidence present us with?

I already said I don't use rationality to appraise experience, at least not primarily. I don't play by the same rules that you do here. Can you make a case for why I have to play by your rules? — Noble Dust

So that I can make a distinction between self-delusion/illusion/personal bias/wishful thinnking, and good answers. How do you do that?

1) assumes that all concepts can be firmly grasped. I disagree. The development of human thought constantly reevaluates concepts and assumptions; everything from science, to theoretical physics, to diet, to theological problems, to philosophical problems, to art theory. Everything is constantly in a state of change and development. Once a concept is grasped, it seems to change (i.e. my analogy of the insect). So the assumption you make in 1) is wrong; you would need to address that assumption. — Noble Dust

It doesn't assume that all concepts are fixed or simple, which is what you're actually arguing against by bringing up the fact that concepts change. That's a red herring. It just assumes that it is possible to make a simple and succinct working definition for the purposes of a discussion, which it clearly is in many, if not all cases. This is just getting pedantic now.

2) intentionally ill-defined as in to purposefully obfuscate meaning? Who does that in philosophical discussions? I suppose some people probably do. Are you saying religious people do that in order to hold on to their beliefs? — Noble Dust

Closer to the latter, but not just religious people, and "intentionally" might be a little misleading. I don't think someone is saying to themselves "I'm going to use his term in such a way as to hide the meaning, or the fact that there is no meaning". I think that the term evolves in use to serve the purpose of being ill-defined, which serves a psychological need. People do that sort of thing all the time, and often don't realize it. Did you hear how Ivanka Trump responded to suggestions that she was complicit in some of the policy decisions of her father? She clearly didn't have a grasp on what the word "complicit" meant, but for some very specific and probably obvious reasons, she chose to use the word without having a grasp of what it meant. I'm not saying it's the same thing, but the point is, it's not strange for people to treat language as a thing you do, rather than a way to convey meaning.

To some extent it does. No theory perfectly accounts for all phenomena, but an "all body" approach is 100% consistent with all of these phenomena. — Reformed Nihilist

How does it account for morality?

I'm asking you if you can clearly define the word "spirit" — Reformed Nihilist

I'll put this here for clarity:

I should clarify that my definition of spirituality is the state of something being spiritual; so my definition of spirit is actually what I initially said as the definition of spirituality. Spirit is the inner life of the outer world of experience. Sorry for the confusion, I'm working through the ideas myself.

So that leads to:

You have to start inventing a mechanism by which the body and mind interact, — Reformed Nihilist

I'm not trying to "invent a mechanism", but one idea I've been working on is that spirit generates material. The material world is calcified spirit. Mind (consciousness) is further genesis of spirit within the material of the mind. It's clunky, but it's less clunky than the idea that consciousness is a property of the physical mind (which means consciousness is a physical substance).

I just have to point out that there is a difference between a good explanation and a bad one, and it isn't just based on which one resonates with you. — Reformed Nihilist

Why? What does this impartiality achieve for you? What's the goal of empirical impartially?

Which hypothesis makes more sense? Or what is your hypothesis that accounts for all the evidence but includes mind/body dualism? — Reformed Nihilist

First of all, as I said, I'm not arguing mind/body dualism in the sense you're using it. But,

3) If spirit generates consciousness within the physical mind, then damage of the physical mind leads to impaired consciousness, but it doesn't follow that physical damage reaches to spirit. And yes, there is "mind within mind", in my experience, as I already said. So this is an aspect of that fact. But no, it doesn't go any deeper than that, from my experience. But my experience could be wrong.

Ok, can we try a simple definition again, or is this another word that magically can't be defined? — Reformed Nihilist

Lose the patronizing tone and I'll respond.

I'm not setting up a tautology, I'm asking you if you have any means to discriminate intuitions from self-delusions. I don't. That's why I don't trust intuitions. — Reformed Nihilist

Really? Intuition structures all thought; logic is structured on intuition; creativity is structured on intuition, emotion, even, is structured on it. Intuition is the connective tissue that connects a human faculty to experience. Or, since you like definitions:

Intuition: the underlying human faculty that connects other human faculties to experience.

Intuition is what's leading you to make any arguments at all here. Logic alone, or empirical evidence alone can't explain WHY you, Reformed Nihilist, are making your arguments, and why you think it worthwhile to do so.

Do you think it is wise to hold a belief "fervently" that is both contrary to the evidence, and seems to only be based on your feeling that it is the case? Mightn't it make more sense to follow the conclusions that the evidence present us with? — Reformed Nihilist

Wait, the piano reference was an analogy to how I view spirituality; are you critiquing how I view spirituality here, or something else? You seem to be extrapolating on the piano metaphor in order to criticize something else that you think you sense in my arguments. As to there being evidence that being good at something is innate...please, there's new studies constantly that contradict themselves on those things. I can't be bothered with whatever the Daily Mail deemed worth publishing. You, like so many, bow to the orthodox authority of scientific evidence. I do not. One year the universe is a hologram, the next there are infinite universes; one year creativity is innate, the next it's learned; one year coconut oil is healthy, the next it's not. I refuse to be dragged this way and that by constant studies that not even scientists themselves can fully keep abreast of, let alone someone like myself who has tons of other interests.

So that I can make a distinction between self-delusion/illusion/personal bias, and good answers. — Reformed Nihilist

How do you know which answers are good?

I know through intuition.

It doesn't assume that all concepts are fixed or simple, which is what you're actually arguing against by bringing up the fact that concepts change. That's a red herring. — Reformed Nihilist

Nope; a firm grasp of a concept would no longer be firm once the concept changes.

It just assumes that it is possible to make a simple and succinct working definition for the purposes of a discussion, which it clearly is in many, if not all cases. This is just getting pedantic now. — Reformed Nihilist

It is getting pedantic, yes, but I gave my definition for spirituality ages ago. What's the problem? What other words do you want me to make up my own dictionary definitions for?

Closer to the latter, — Reformed Nihilist

I largely agree with your last paragraph here. I also tried to condense my response this time because we're talking about so many things, but I didn't quite pull it off..

How do you know which answers are good? — Noble Dust

Through the application of reasoning and evidence.

I know through intuition. — Noble Dust

If you rely on intuition above rationality, as you claim, then you are, by definition, being irrational. You are free to be irrational, but I cannot have a rational discussion with someone who is proudly irrational. I came here for a rational discussion. Perhaps someone else can have an intuitive discussion with you.

If you rely on intuition above rationality, as you claim, then you are, by definition, being irrational. You are free to be irrational, but I cannot have a rational discussion with someone who is proudly irrational. I came here for a rational discussion. — Reformed Nihilist

I came here for a discussion of spirituality. If you come to a discussion of spirituality armed only with rationality, then of course your own prophecies about it will be fulfilled, and you won't be able to debate about it in more than one way.

The material world is calcified spirit. — Noble Dust

The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws. — C S Peirce

One of the ironic things about the insistence on 'reason' - like, for example, Richard Dawkins 'Institute for Reason' (or whatever it's called), is that one of the hallmarks of 'modern thought' is the disappearance of reason from the Universe. Why? Because, traditionally, the Universe was felt to be 'animated by reason' - this was so even for the so-called 'pagan Greeks', it's not necessarily a theistic attitude. But in any case, one of the hallmarks of the advent of modernity is the conviction that 'life arises by chance'. Indeed it's an article of faith (pardon the irony) for convinced materialists such as Jacques Monod. So whenever someone demands 'a reasoned argument' about any metaphysical question - what is the nature of mind/life/reality - ask, what do you mean by 'reason'? Scientific reason doesn't go 'all the way down'.

The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws. — C S Peirce

Interesting, looks like I need to do some more reading.

So whenever someone demands 'a reasoned argument' about any metaphysical question - what is the nature of mind/life/reality - ask, what do you mean by 'reason'? Scientific reason doesn't go 'all the way down'. — Wayfarer

Yes, I was trying to get at that in response to , but maybe I didn't frame it quite so succinctly. The history of rationality in general is something I'm interested in studying more.

Have a look at the book 'the eclipse of reason', by Max Horkheimer. He and Adorno's criticism of the 'instrumentalisation of reason' are worth being acquainted with (given that they're both fairly hard-core materialists). See this blog post.

That quote is about the net sum of my knowledge of Peirce, although I find his writing generally congenial to my outlook.

Read the blog post, looks interesting. I wonder how an analysis of how those problems have developed up until the present would fair, vs. this analysis from 1947. Has anything changed or developed, positively or negatively, since then?

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

I wonder how an analysis of how those problems have developed up until the present would fair, vs. this analysis from 1947. Has anything changed or developed, positively or negatively, since then? — Noble Dust

I don't think much has changed, because I don't think many people are aware of the problem that he's trying to articulate. I find this passage pretty compelling:

In popular Darwinism, reason is purely an organ; spirit or mind, a thing of nature. According to a current interpretation of Darwin, the struggle for life must necessarily, step by step, through natural selection, produce the reasonable out of the unreasonable. In other words, reason, while serving the function of dominating nature, is whittled down to being a part of nature; it is not an independent faculty but something organic, like tentacles or hands, developed through adaptation to natural conditions and surviving because it proves to be an adequate means of mastering them, especially in relation to acquiring food and averting danger. As a part of nature, reason is at the same time set against nature–the competitor and enemy of all life that is not its own.

The idea inherent in all idealistic metaphysics–that the world is in some sense a product of the mind–is thus turned into its opposite: the mind is a product of the world, of the processes of nature. Hence, according to popular Darwinism, nature does not need philosophy to speak for her: nature, a powerful and venerable deity, is ruler rather than ruled. Darwinism ultimately comes to the aid of rebellious nature in undermining any doctrine, theological or philosophical, that regards nature itself as expressing a truth that reason must try to recognize. The equating of reason with nature, by which reason is debased and raw nature exalted, is a typical fallacy of the era of rationalization. Instrumentalized subjective reason either eulogizes nature as pure vitality or disparages it as brute force, instead of treating it as a text to be interpreted by philosophy that, if rightly read, will unfold a tale of infinite suffering. Without committing the fallacy of equating nature and reason, mankind must try to reconcile the two.

In traditional theology and metaphysics, the natural was largely conceived as the evil, and the spiritual or supernatural as the good. In popular Darwinism, the good is the well-adapted, and the value of that to which the organism adapts itself is unquestioned or is measured only in terms of further adaptation. However, being well adapted to one’s surroundings is tantamount to being capable of coping successfully with them, of mastering the forces that beset one. Thus the theoretical denial of the spirit’s antagonism to nature–even as implied in the doctrine of interrelation between the various forms of organic life, including man–frequently amounts in practice to subscribing to the principle of man’s continuous and thoroughgoing domination of nature. Regarding reason as a natural organ does not divest it of the trend to domination or invest it with greater potentialities for reconciliation. On the contrary, the abdication of the spirit in popular Darwinism entails the rejection of any elements of the mind that transcend the function of adaptation and consequently are not instruments of self-preservation. Reason disavows its own primacy and professes to be a mere servant of natural selection. On the surface, this new empirical reason seems more humble toward nature than the reason of the metaphysical tradition. Actually, however, it is arrogant, practical mind riding roughshod over the ‘useless spiritual,’ and dismissing any view of nature in which the latter is taken to be more than a stimulus to human activity. The effects of this view are not confined to modern philosophy.

Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason, pp. 123-127.

This can be related to a form of argument known as the 'argument from reason', with which I am entirely in sympathy. Usually it is deployed in apologetics, but I don't think it needs to be. Compare the above passage from something I often quote on the Forum, Leon Wieseltier's review of Daniel Dennett's book on trying to explain religion in terms of Darwinian theory.

[Dennett] thinks that an inquiry into belief is made superfluous by an inquiry into the belief in belief. This is a very revealing mistake. You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. If you believe that you can disprove it any other way, by describing its origins or by describing its consequences, then you do not believe in reason. In this profound sense, Dennett does not believe in reason. He will be outraged to hear this, since he regards himself as a giant of rationalism. But the reason he imputes to the human creatures depicted in his book is merely a creaturely reason. Dennett's natural history does not deny reason, it animalizes reason. It portrays reason in service to natural selection, and as a product of natural selection. But if reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? The power of reason is owed to the independence of reason, and to nothing else. (In this respect, rationalism is closer to mysticism than it is to materialism.) Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.

I think a great deal of 'biologism', which thoroughly infects a lot of current thinking, does this all the time. In assuming that reason can be explained as a biological adaption it thoroughly undermines the sovereignty of reason - it 'explains' it, as on par with a peacock's tail.

(This is also the subject of a trenchant essay by Thomas Nagel, in his book The Last Word, called Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, which is a must read, in my view.)

The last point about Horkheimer, though, is that he wrote Eclipse of Reason in post-war Germany, in an attempt to account for the monstrosity of Nazism. He saw the submission to authoritarianism as one of the symptoms of the 'eclipse'.

feeling of belonging in the world or serving a higher purpose — darthbarracuda

I felt your answer, db, was very powerful. It's worth noticing that you found it right to say 'feeling' several times, and 'desire'. I'm an atheist who just accepts the notion of spiritual feelings and spiritual thoughts, although I suspect that to separate 'feelings' and 'thoughts' is inappropriate.

The parallel for me is with art that profoundly moves me. In another thread NobleDust speaks of this as 'divine', and while I don't use that language I feel we're on common ground. To respond, say, to Shostakovich's later symphonies or certain poems or Guernica or the dark musical 'Carousel' - all obviously personal examples - is to experience a marvellous mixture of the aesthetic, the rational and the emotional.

The critique of spirituality rarely touches on 'feelings' or 'emotions'. For me this realm of emotions underlies everything, even rationality: a rational argument is only as good as its premisses, which are at bottom emotional. Mood is the way we are in the world.

I think one needs to be wary of quoting Wittgenstein as if he might agree with an anti-spiritual stance. He was very interested in religion although a non-believer. He wrote of ethics as 'Supernatural', and he didn't mean by this to write it off, but rather to say that as with aesthetics, which he bracketed with ethics, something other than 'natural' criteria apply.

He was very interested in religion although a non-believer. — mcdoodle

I wouldn't be sure about that at all.

In September 1914, Wittgenstein, off duty [from service in WW1], visited the town of Tarnow, then in Austrian Galicia, now in southern Poland, where he went into a small shop that seemed to sell nothing but picture postcards. However, as Bertrand Russell later wrote in a letter, Wittgenstein “found that it contained just one book: [of] Tolstoy on the Gospels. He bought it merely because there was no other. He read it and re-read it, and thenceforth had it always with him, under fire and at all times.” No wonder, then, that Wittgenstein became known to his fellow soldiers as ‘the one with the Gospels’. Tolstoy’s book, however, is a single Gospel: hence its name: The Gospel in Brief. It is, as Tolstoy himself says in his Preface, “a fusion of the four Gospels into one.” Tolstoy had distilled the four biblical accounts of Christ’s life and teaching into a compelling story. Wittgenstein was so profoundly moved by it that he doubted whether the actual Gospels could possibly be better than Tolstoy’s synthesis. “If you are not acquainted with it,” he told his friend Ludwig von Ficker, “then you cannot imagine what effect it can have on a person.” It implanted a Christian faith in Wittgenstein. Before going on night-duty at the observation post, he wrote: “Perhaps the nearness of death will bring me the light of life. May God enlighten me. Through God I will become a man. God be with me. Amen.”

....

...when Wittgenstein risked his life in battle day after day, he found solace in Tolstoy’s version of the Gospels: hence his prayer ‘May God enlighten me’. By 1916 his experience of war had made him a different man to the one whom Russell had met in 1911.

The scope of the Tractatus, too, had broadened: it was no longer just about the possibility of language being logically and pictorially connected to the world. Wittgenstein had begun to feel that logic and what he strangely called ‘mysticism’ sprang from the same root. This explains the second big idea in the Tractatus – which the logical positivists ignored: the thought of there being an unutterable kind of truth that ‘makes itself manifest’.

From Wittgenstein,Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism, Stuart Greenstreet.

Why did you delete the rest of our quips in this exchange when you split this thread? It looks like you made it sound as if I was complimenting your atheism and leaving it basically at that, without the finer (and funnier) shades we both insinuated in the parts you deleted. What gives?

Yes, I was trying to get at that in response to ↪Reformed Nihilist, but maybe I didn't frame it quite so succinctly. The history of rationality in general is something I'm interested in studying more. — Noble Dust

A baseline of commonality is required for useful discussion, and we do not share that baseline, if your claims are genuine. If you genuinely believe that your intuition, your feeling that you are correct, is sufficient grounds to believe that you are correct, and that it requires no further justification by use of reason or appeals to evidence, then I don't know how to, or why I would want to have a discussion with you.

I'd invite you to imagine in you're mind's eye for a moment, what the world would look like if everyone adopted this approach to knowing things. 1+1=5 because I intuit that it does. Your money is actually my money because my intuition tells me so. Do you really want to use those ground rules for interacting with people (rhetorical question, don't bother answering)?

your intuition, your feeling that you are correct, — Reformed Nihilist

Nowhere here did I equate these.

I'd invite you to imagine in you're mind's eye for a moment, what the world would look like if everyone adopted this approach to knowing things. 1+1=5 because I intuit that it does. Your money is actually my money because my intuition tells me so. — Reformed Nihilist

This is a charicature of what I said. I'd invite you to re-read what I said if you want to comment on it.

You haven't addressed what I said about your appeal to rationality: Coming to a discussion about spirituality armed only with rationality creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for you; you already know that spirituality won't avail itself to your rationality.

Basically just any sort of feeling of belonging in the world or serving a higher purpose that is not immediately concrete and accessible but rather overarching and "cosmic", something that permeates everything and anything. That there is some "other" order to the universe that makes it all "make sense", justifies injustices and to which the aesthetic provides access to.

It's the feeling of being almost-at-home, but not quite, as if you're approaching some big discovery and part of the deal is that it's mysterious, and that once you finally arrive it'll all make sense, including why it had to be mysterious in the first place. Most likely this understanding would seem to reside after death, in some other realm or mode of existence, and which the journey to is life.

I'd say it's a deep, primordial desire to belong and see what it "all" is about, how everything hangs together, to comprehend the necessity of every thing that exists and grasp some grand, metaphysical mosaic of meaning. It's natural and inevitable but I think it's also commonly formed from desperation. It's not just a desire but a need, a demand, that the universe be welcoming and recognize the person. Or at least "open up" to their questions.

So basically it's a feeling that one might be finally getting some answers to the questions that have haunted and plagued humanity since it first started philosophizing. — darthbarracuda

I don't know, at this point I see that basically as a combination of (a) a side-effect of us having evolved in a way that required us to use our intelligence to survive (so there's a "figuring stuff out" drive in us) and (b) combatting boredom.