Well, the dichotomy is in the language and is present in much philosophising, including yours. I believe we are constantly both reasoning and emoting and that yours is as false a dichotomy, between being and doing, as whatever you thought mine was. — mcdoodle

Being and doing aren't a dichotomy, they're just two different things. That's exactly my point, and exactly why reason and emotion are also not dichotomies. You seem to also agree when you say "I believe we are constantly both reasoning and emoting". We clearly are doing both simultaneously, all the time, or at least nearly all the time.

The general feeling I have is that many critiques of 'spirituality', including yours, fail to account for spiritual feelings and emotions. What is it that the religious are feeling when they describe profound emotions? — mcdoodle

I'm not sure that I have to account for emotions. Emotions are already accounted for. We have hormones and a brain and they interact in such a way as to produce different emotions.

Unless you are saying that inter-personally, I should be more sensitive to the feelings of those who hold a different view then mine, in which case...

The Dawkins/Dennett approach is largely to ignore that aspect of things, and to treat religions as if they were pseudo-sciences, with all the emotion distilled into propositions. I should like to begin with mutual respect, between atheist and believer, and such mutual respect seems to me to involve accepting that 'spiritual experience' happens, feels profound to the person it happens to, combines deep thought with deep feeling, and as such has considerable standing in one's evaluation of how things are, how the world is. Even if you're an atheist like me! — mcdoodle

I'm sorry, but I feel like you've just mixed a huge pile of different things together here. The first thing is that Dawkins, Dennett, and I are three separate people, who share some beliefs about religion, but not every belief. The three of us also share vastly different interpersonal approaches (it may not feel that way to you, but I promise it is true). That is the way of the world. There are some people that are loud, over-step social boundaries, are brash. There are people who are measured and careful, and there are all sorts of people in the middle. There are also people who will mince words and not say what they truly believe for fear of hurting someone's feeling (I'm not that type of person). It takes all kinds of people to make the world go around, including the brash loudmouths. Can you see some benefit for being tolerant to people's different styles, ignoring them as much as possible, to engage in their actual arguments?

The other thing that I think needs to be addressed is the notion that people who argue against spiritualism think that they fail in "accepting that 'spiritual experience' happens, feels profound to the person it happens to, combines deep thought with deep feeling, and as such has considerable standing in one's evaluation of how things are, how the world is.". I'm sorry, but this is just factually wrong. Everyone I know, or at least anyone that is taken the least bit seriously in the world, that argues against spiritualism, publicly and repeatedly acknowledges that people have experiences which they believe to be spiritual, and that are very emotionally moving. Of course people do. Everybody knows that. It doesn't change the fact that to many of us, we believe that those experiences that people have can actually be best described in terms of material causes.

Everyone I know, or at least anyone that is taken the least bit seriously in the world, that argues against spiritualism, publicly and repeatedly acknowledges that people have experiences which they believe to be spiritual, and that are very emotionally moving. Of course people do. Everybody knows that. It doesn't change the fact that to many of us, we believe that those experiences that people have can actually be best described in terms of material causes. — Reformed Nihilist

Well, then you need to continue your dialogue with Mariner, for it's not clear to me that it's any *better* to describe how I feel when listening to Shostakovich or feeling a sense of oneness with the universe 'in terms of material causes'. I talk about artistic feelings in artistic terms usually, political matters in political terms, and and spiritual matters in sometimes spiritual terms and language. What your claim to 'best description' seems to involve is a rejection of the very possibility of 'spiritual terms and language', i.e. I am welcome speak on your terms, about science and stuff, but you won't speak on my terms, because you claim your terms encompass my terms. Pomos would talk about 'discourse' here and I think that's a useful term.

For myself, I can imagine there might be some sort of sociology-biology-chemistry-physics chain of explanations that could in an imaginary future universe show me the 'material causes' of my saying, say, 'I believe there are more things in heaven and hearth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' But it's a long way off, and involves a leap of faith in the scientific enterprise. It isn't here now, revealed in the fmri scans of 23 Columbia Uni students to be the basis of thought.

I disagree about emotions, incidentally, and I think that's a contributory factor here: I take emotions more seriously, as cognitive factors, than I think you do. Emotions are, under one sort of description, judgments about the world, and it's useful to talk of them in that way as well as in terms of hormones and a brain. When you argue for 'material causes' you seem to me to make a commitment to the rightness of a certain kind of scientising enterprise, and that commitment is as emotionally-based as any reasoned 'spiritual' commitment.

Well, then you need to continue your dialogue with Mariner, for it's not clear to me that it's any *better* to describe how I feel when listening to Shostakovich or feeling a sense of oneness with the universe 'in terms of material causes'. I talk about artistic feelings in artistic terms usually, political matters in political terms, and and spiritual matters in sometimes spiritual terms and language. What your claim to 'best description' seems to involve is a rejection of the very possibility of 'spiritual terms and language', i.e. I am welcome speak on your terms, about science and stuff, but you won't speak on my terms, because you claim your terms encompass my terms. Pomos would talk about 'discourse' here and I think that's a useful term. — mcdoodle

That's a very fair answer, but I think it ignores that the term "spiritual" has cultural and historical baggage, and unspoken assumptions associated with it, that don't reflect a growing group's way of thinking, so it ends up being non-representative and exclusive. It's funny. I was just (10 minutes ago) speaking with a person I know on social media about traditional gender norms, and how they relate to people with non-traditional sexuality or gender identity. I, in trying to talk about this relationship, mentioned that people I knew (it's been 20 years since I had gay friends that I regularly hung out with) identified as "the wife" and "the husband". I was informed that to suggest those sorts of roles (in that manner) to a gay couple today would likely earn me a black eye. That's because there is baggage (emotional and intellectual) associated with that sort of language. To a straight guy, there's no reason for me to consider that baggage, just as to someone who doesn't reject the metaphysical idea of immaterialism, and what it implies epistemologicaly, doesn't have reason to reject the language of spiritualism. I think the value of this sort of dialogue is to examine the way we speak as a culture and society, and if there is value in doing so, change the way we speak about these things.

For myself, I can imagine there might be some sort of sociology-biology-chemistry-physics chain of explanations that could in an imaginary future universe show me the 'material causes' of my saying, say, 'I believe there are more things in heaven and hearth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' But it's a long way off, and involves a leap of faith in the scientific enterprise. It isn't here now, revealed in the fmri scans of 23 Columbia Uni students to be the basis of thought. — mcdoodle

I'm not familiar which study you are referencing, but I'm not sure what sort of standard would have to be met to determine that virtually all of the things we have traditionally associated with a soul or spirit are actually physical/biological. I mean we don't understand the brain perfectly, nor are we ever likely too, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything. We also don't understand the universe perfectly, but we can reasonably claim some knowledge, and ideas that were previously widely accepted, we can dismiss (geocentrism, Luminiferous aether, etc). I think we can say without any scientific controversy that personality, emotions, identity (and it's locality inside or outside your body) and everything else we would identify as "cognative" are a result of brain processes. Is it theoretically possible that there is a "something else" involved? Sure, there's nothing that makes that logically incoherent. There's also no good reason to assume that there is such a thing. Or at least none that I'm aware of.

I disagree about emotions, incidentally, and I think that's a contributory factor here: I take emotions more seriously, as cognitive factors, than I think you do. Emotions are, under one sort of description, judgments about the world, and it's useful to talk of them in that way as well as in terms of hormones and a brain. When you argue for 'material causes' you seem to me to make a commitment to the rightness of a certain kind of scientising enterprise, and that commitment is as emotionally-based as any reasoned 'spiritual' commitment. — mcdoodle

Who says I don't take emotions seriously? I'm just saying that we have a pretty good handle on the biology of emotions. Better than we do on the biology of thought. Raise epinephrine levels and you'll get anxiety, testosterone; aggression, oxytocin; caring. Those are a little bit oversimple (for the sake of discussion), but there is an undisputed causal relationship between hormones and emotions.

In regards to "scientising", I think a quote from Steven Novella encapsulates my thoughts on the matter:

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?” — Steven Novalla

Lastly, to say that "emotions are judgements of the world", as far as I can tell, is twisting language to a breaking point. The common use of the term "judgement" is "an opinion or conclusion". You have a considered opinion (a judgement), or after thinking about something, you come to a conclusion (make a judgement), so it makes sense to associate judgement with thought. This is different than a "reaction or predisposition", which makes sense to associate with emotions/feelings. When you have a reaction to something (you feel X way about it), or you are emotionally predisposed toward different experiences (you have feelings about a subject). Don't you think this is a more common way of using these words? I'm glad to talk about emotions in terms of reactions or predispositions, but you'll have to give me some context, a question that requires an answer, or a problem that requires a solution, whereby that's a relevant thing to talk about. If I talk about spirituality as a predisposition or reaction to an experience, then I am accused of dismissing it. I do think that with what many people think of as spiritual experiences, they are emotionally affected in such a way that causes a reaction and a predisposition toward gravitating toward whatever their cultural version of religious mythology is (or other mythology they are exposed to, like ghosts, UFOs, generic godheads, or "something greater than myself").

I'm glad to talk about emotion, or whatever you think is relevant. Normally, I'd expect you to actually propose what you think about what emotion (or whatever else) has to do with the subject though, before you accuse me of ignoring it or making light of it. I'm only talking about what seems relevant given what is presented to me by whoever is talking to me.

Edit: I'm going to state this explicitly, even though I alluded to it in the last post. You responses seem to be based on a pre-defined characterization of what you think an "angry atheist" or "evangelical atheist" looks like, and you seem to be offering critiques of that characterization. I am an empathetic, creative, caring person, who is interested in the truth. I do also sometimes come on strongly, but I'm no Richard Dawkins, and I'm 100% not what the average person who dislikes Dawkins thinks he is. I have come from a place where I thought about things lazily, and over the years, sometimes because of the rough treatment of people who had a more rigorous approach, my thinking became more rigorous (if anyone remembers Gassendi1 from the other forum, I thought he was a dickhead, but he pushed me to think more carefully. I heard he passed away a few years ago, and I'm sorry he never knew the benefit I got from him being so critical).

The next step in symbolization, you mean. To insist on a reasoning before we straighten that out would skip the important steps. — Mariner

Well, that's not what I meant, but for the sake of argument, I'll play along for now.

BTW, I missed your post because you didn't mention me. Just as a bit of pragmatic housecleaning, would you mind making sure I get tagged in any response you make to me?

History can be of two kinds: personal (psychological) or social (i.e. cultural). — Mariner

I assume that is meant to be a practical distinction, not a logically necessary one? If the latter, you'll have to explain how you come to that conclusion. If the former, I'm fine with seeing were this goes.

What is needed now is the study of how (a) a baby learns how to develop the notions of experiencer/experienced (and what are the names given), or (b) the etymology of the words matter:spirit. — Mariner

Why specifically those things? Are there no other possible considerations, or are those just the one's you judge to be important? What criteria are you using to choose those questions over others?

Note that this approach is prior to any questions regarding argumentation or reasoning. We are trying to understand the origin of the symbols being used, and to trace those symbols to the underlying experience. — Mariner

If you aren't presenting your reasoning to me, then what are you doing, and (honest question) why should I care?

You responses seem to be based on a pre-defined characterization of what you think an "angry atheist" or "evangelical atheist" looks like, and you seem to be offering critiques of that characterization. I am an empathetic, creative, caring person, who is interested in the truth. — Reformed Nihilist

I'm sorry any reply is short, I am busy for a few days. It is hard to know one another just through forums like this, and one takes shortcuts based on stereotypes. So, pardon me for doing this with you :)

What we judge of each other also comes up in your remarks about the right naming of gendery topics. I live near the lesbian capital of northern England and there's quite a variety of labels in use there, including women ironically referring to each other as the husband and the wife. I just avoid any controversy. An odd thing that happens with campaigning people is that they tend to over- generalise from their point of view. Dammit, they know what it is to Purple, they've been on a journey to be Purple, so what right has a straight like you to call Purples whatever you want?

I suppose that's what I also think happens to atheists. You must be a Dawkins/Dennett of some kind, sort of thing.

I think we can say without any scientific controversy that personality, emotions, identity (and it's locality inside or outside your body) and everything else we would identify as "cognative" are a result of brain processes. Is it theoretically possible that there is a "something else" involved? Sure, there's nothing that makes that logically incoherent. There's also no good reason to assume that there is such a thing. Or at least none that I'm aware of. — Reformed Nihilist

This seems to be an area worth exploring. I would tend to say 'bodily' rather than 'brain', I would worry about 'result', - but I would also say that this whole section is a 'scientific' way of speaking that slips into assuming it can represent other ways of speaking, that it can speak for us all in all contexts.

It's still much more useful, for example, to talk about 'personality, emotions and identity' in terms that aren't *reducible* to brain processes. So to argue that they are 'the result' of brain processes troubles the Humean in me: how has this been demonstrated? The models are primitive. 130 years since William James and the present-day psychological work on emotions, for instance, is amazingly primitive and lacking a secure philosophical basis, or so it seemed to me earlier this year when I was reading up about emotion.

Sorry I didn't get to spirituality and I'm out of time for now.

If you aren't presenting your reasoning to me, then what are you doing, and (honest question) why should I care? — Reformed Nihilist

Well, you should care because philosophers care to know about stuff they don't know, particularly when it is stuff that encompasses the entirety of reality, and even more when they are asking about it.

What I am presenting to you is a way to understand what spirituality is, by retracing its origins, historical and psychological -- I'm presenting two congruent ways because this reinforces the truth of what I'm presenting, and because you may be more inclined to pursue one of them. What I am presenting is not a reasoning, it is an exercise.

It doesn't change the fact that to many of us, we believe that those experiences that people have can actually be best described in terms of material causes. — Reformed Nihilist

Spiritual experiences are best described in terms of material causes;

Material experiences are best described in terms of spiritual causes;

Spiritual experiences are best described in terms of spiritual causes;

Material experiences are best described in terms of material causes.

These four options are wrong. The way out of this is to recognize (by the study of etymology or psychology) that spirit and matter are derived concepts, and to look for the primitive concepts out of which they arose.

But I said that already :D.

I consider the word "spiritual" to be best translated as "psuedo-religious" in most uses. You mean something else I assume? — Reformed Nihilist

As distinct from non pseudo religious? It does not seem like a good place to start; it looks as though you want to translate spiritual into material, which is why I suspect, @Mariner wants to look at the distinction rather than try and 'correct' your translation.

Espirit de corps: a feeling of pride and mutual loyalty shared by the members of a group. We know that there is a real thing, because armies concern themselves with it, and they are eminently practical. So we might say, as materialists, that it is located in the brains of group members. Because we don't believe in psychic woo, we deny that feelings are literally shared, but allow that they can be 'aligned'. And because the group is always interacting, this general alignment influences each member towards the general alignment, even as their various individual experiences influence them away from it.

Spirit: anything over 40% proof. Providing proverbial courage to the Dutch. ;)

Spiritual: pertaining to the general condition of the experiencer. One might want to say that this is understood to be the condition of the brain, but as long as there is no way to read the condition of a brain in the relevant aspects, and even thereafter, it seems perfectly meaningful to talk about spiritual practices, designed to lift the spirits, for example. Perhaps you want to claim that everything spiritual arises from the material as emergent or epiphenomenal, and perhaps you find that a lot of psychic woo (mis)uses the term (these are not the same). Still it is possible to make some sense of another who might think otherwise, that spirit as the condition of the experiencer has an immaterial aspect that might outlast the material being, even if you think them mistaken.

This seems to be an area worth exploring. I would tend to say 'bodily' rather than 'brain', I would worry about 'result', - but I would also say that this whole section is a 'scientific' way of speaking that slips into assuming it can represent other ways of speaking, that it can speak for us all in all contexts.

It's still much more useful, for example, to talk about 'personality, emotions and identity' in terms that aren't *reducible* to brain processes. So to argue that they are 'the result' of brain processes troubles the Humean in me: how has this been demonstrated? The models are primitive. 130 years since William James and the present-day psychological work on emotions, for instance, is amazingly primitive and lacking a secure philosophical basis, or so it seemed to me earlier this year when I was reading up about emotion. — mcdoodle

Well, nothing can be understood perfectly, and in terms of what is the best way to describe something, there is room to frame things broadly or at a very fine grain, depending on context. Having said that, using terminology like "spirutuality" has connotations, and historically those connotations include a "something else" that is not just different than the body, but different from everything we know, and the reason we even seem to have this conception is that we never used to know just how much the brain/body did in terms of our perceptions and sense of self. Have a look at some of the links in my earlier discussion in this thread, if you haven't. It is very compelling stuff regarding the brain being the source of stuff that used to cause philosophers of the mind all kinds of problems. We know more about these things than I think most people who don't follow the neuroscience realize.

I'm still not sure what the distinction between you presenting the reasoning why the way to look at spirituality is valuable, and what you are doing (which to me looks like you presenting your reasoning for your way of looking at spirituality). Is there a reason why you are so resistant to adopt that term? I'm very fond of it myself, because it offers a reason for me to choose between alternatives.

I guess I'm concerned that if I'm required to commit to a metaphysical model before I can even understand what is meant by the use of a word, and we can't even used philosophical shorthand to indicate the philosophical underpinnings. Is that correct? Is this something that doesn't already exist in the broader philosophical cannon? I might already know it, or could read up without having to take every small step with you. If it does, give me the origin, and we can save some possible confusion.

As distinct from non pseudo religious? It does not seem like a good place to start; it looks as though you want to translate spiritual into material, which is why I suspect, Mariner wants to look at the distinction rather than try and 'correct' your translation — unenlightened

I believe there is no factual refferent for what spiritual is historically used to speak about. That doesn't mean I'm trying to translate spiritual into material, any more than I would be translating a unicorn into a horse by saying there are no unicorns. I also believe that there is a more recent common use that is usually ill defined, sometimes incoherent, and could often be substituted for "psuedo-religious" without loosing meaning. I am open to hearing what other meanings might exist, that don't fit into these paradigms.

Spiritual: pertaining to the general condition of the experiencer. — unenlightened

Would that make it synonymous with "subjective"? If so, why not just use that word, which is laden with much less metaphysical baggage? Also, what would make a spiritual experience distinct from a garden variety experience?

Edit: That definition also doesn't account for the way the word gets used. By this formulation, "I listened to a Beethoven sonata, and it was a spiritual experience" is roughly equivalent to "I had a piece of cold left-over pizza, and it was a spiritual experience", and there's not much meaningful difference between just saying you listened to the sonata or ate the pizza. Isn't the word usually making a claim about the sorce or nature of the experience? That it's special and district from normal experiences in some way?

I know that if I am calling an experience spiritual, I am saying that it is as emotionally moving as a religious experience that portents to contact the experienced with the divine. I am also no doubt using hyperbole. Exactly the same way as I would use the word "divine" to describe the tiramisu at the restaurant down the street. I'm co-opting the historical meanings, but being (I hope) transparent about being metaphorical. That makes "pseudo-religous" a pretty accurate description of the use as far as I can tell. I just suspect that some people use the word without considering if they are using it historically or metaphorically, so they just use it and if they don't run into any cognitive walls, they don't ever bother to make the distinction, or they figure it's a third thing, but never take the time to figure what that thing is.

Spiritual: pertaining to the general condition of the experiencer.
— unenlightened

Would that make it synonymous with "subjective"? If so, why not just use that word, which is laden with much less metaphysical baggage? Also, what would make a spiritual experience distinct from a garden variety experience?

Edit: That definition also doesn't account for the way the word gets used. By this formulation, "I listened to a Beethoven sonata, and it was a spiritual experience" is roughly equivalent to "I had a piece of cold left-over pizza, and it was a spiritual experience", and there's not much meaningful difference between just saying you listened to the sonata or ate the pizza. — Reformed Nihilist

It would make sense to talk about subjective experience, if there was objective experience. But there isn't. So it is not at all synonymous. Garden variety experiences do not affect the experiencer; if you have a piece of cold left-over pizza, and it is a life-changing experience, then I would call it spiritual. Obviously, there is no absolute delineation that separates ordinary experience from spiritual, but one can say, perhaps that everyday experience accumulates as habit whereas spiritual experience disrupts.

I think this fits with the way people use the term, though it is over-used by some. A piece of music can be experienced with a depth that changes one's life, both in terms of one's understanding of one's past and in the direction of one's future. It is more than mere intensity. If one has a spiritual experience, one is not the same person after it as one was before; it is traumatic, though as I said it gets mis-used for the merely dramatic. If you are indeed re-formed, then I would think you have had a spiritual experience.

and it is a life-changing experience, then I would call it spiritual. Obviously, there is no absolute delineation that separates ordinary experience from spiritual, but one can say, perhaps that everyday experience accumulates as habit whereas spiritual experience disrupts. — unenlightened

So spiritual is synonymous with "life changing" then? Why not say that? Or "transformative"? Why cop-opt terms of religion, with all the baggage and possibility of misunderstanding that it entails? I guess if the context makes it clear that there is no implied metaphysical baggage, then communicating however you want is fair game. I'm just saying that it often isn't clear. Not to the listener, and (more controversially) to the speaker. Let me give you a few quotes from this thread to highlight this:

To be devoid of spirituality is to be homeless. At least that's what it seems to me.

spirituality is incomprehensible if the student does not explore a time (historical or psychological, both avenues are fruitful) in which spirituality and materiality were merged in a single, unnamed concept

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

So it seems to me that the way it is used often includes importing metaphysical implications. Just push against it a little and they begin popping out. The other effect of pushing against it a little, is you tend to get a sort of mysterianism. Claims that there is 100%, unarguably something there, but it is something that defies explanation, definition, and rational analysis. Surely the notion that something is life changing doesn't defy rational analysis?

It is more than mere intensity. If one has a spiritual experience, one is not the same person after it as one was before; it is traumatic, though as I said it gets mis-used for the merely dramatic. If you are indeed re-formed, then I would think you have had a spiritual experience. — unenlightened

We are destroyed and reformed all the time. Mostly it happens so gradually, little piece by little piece, that we don't notice, but sometimes we mark a specific event on the road of our reinvention as being epiphanous, because it is great enough in it's effect to move above the background noise of the constant change. How is that not a matter of intensity? If it isn't a matter of intensity, what is it a matter of?

Is there a reason why you are so resistant to adopt that term? — Reformed Nihilist

I'm resistant to use a term that does not describe reality. I already presented the reasoning:

1. There is a whole family of pairs of concepts, which may be called polarized concepts (examples were given). A concept belonging to this family cannot be properly understood or employed without a full knowledge of its polarized nature.
2. Spirit:matter is one such pair.
3. Therefore, a discussion of spirituality cannot proceed without an analysis of the full pair, and without an acknowledgment that the concept of spirit, in its origin, is not a separate substance.

You rejected this reasoning, focusing on the lack of evidence for (2). To provide evidence for (2), what is necessary is not a further reasoning (because reasonings don't provide evidence). What is necessary is the gathering of data. Hence, the proposed exercises.

Is this [metaphysical model] something that doesn't already exist in the broader philosophical canon? I might already know it, or could read up without having to take every small step with you. If it does, give me the origin, and we can save some possible confusion. — Reformed Nihilist

Well, the entire pre-Cartesian worldview (which is more than a metaphysical model, of course) is grounded on the polarity of spirit:matter. Which means that your Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Scholastics, falsafah, etc. are grounded on that.

If you want more modern sources: Joseph Campbell, Jungian psychology (ironically, stripped of its metaphysical model -- Jung, like Freud, was much better observing than theorizing), Mircea Eliade, Ernst Cassirer, Eric Voegelin are some of the authors I've read who, coming from very different vantage points and objectives, highlight the polarity of spirit and matter.

I'm resistant to use a term that does not describe reality. — Mariner

So you think reasoning is just make believe? You don't think there is mental cause/effect? Do you think everyone's beliefs are arbitrary? By reasoning, I'm just talking about the reasons why you believe what you do. The mental steps you took from no belief or a different belief, to your current belief. Nothing more than that in this context.

Also, I've been pretty laid back about this because I always remembered you being someone who was fair-minded and easy to discuss with, but I really find it hard to discuss with you when you make statements in the form that present yourself as the authority on reality. Why are you any greater an authority than I am, or anyone else? So is there a problem with a change in tone regarding making absolute statements, one's you probably know I don't agree with you about, as if they were incontrovertible?

Well, the entire pre-Cartesian worldview — Mariner

You say that like there is a singular, monolithic pre-Cartesian worldview. Throughout the entire history of recorded human thought, people have conceptualized things differently from each other. I have no reason to doubt that there were analogues to you and I at any given moment in history, discussing analogous differences in worldview. So I'm asking if there's a level of specificity somewhere between "the entire pre-Cartesian worldview" and "I'll have to explain my entire worldview in detail to you", where you can point to that contains the relevant concepts and vocabulary so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel, but I don't have to read every book ever written prior to 1600CE. So for example, if (like earlier in this thread) the concept of intuition came up, you could say something similar to "I'm referring to Kant's conception of intuition", at which point, I would know, more or less, what you mean.

So you reference Jung. He was a pantheist. Is pantheism basically the worldview you are talking about? Or a modified version of pantheism?

So you think reasoning is just make believe? — Reformed Nihilist

I'm struggling to imagine a reading of my last post that reaches this conclusion.

Also, I've been pretty laid back about this because I always remembered you being someone who was fair-minded and easy to discuss with, but I really find it hard to discuss with you when you make statements in the form that present yourself as the authority on reality. — Reformed Nihilist

That question of yours is being "laid back"?

Ok. Have fun. I've suggested a way out of your declared problem, of understanding spirituality. Whether you'll explore it or not is your decision.

I'm being pretty laid back here, and expecting an interlocutor who is willing to read the comments with a bare minimum of charity.

By the way...

You say that like there is a singular, monolithic pre-Cartesian worldview. — Reformed Nihilist

Yes, on this specific question of the nature of spirit, there was a singular, monolithic pre-Cartesian worldview. So, you don't have to read every book written before 1600 AD -- pick any book you like (including Shakespeare, incidentally) and you'll see it there.

When I give you a wide gamut of sources, you complain. If I give you my personal experience, you complain. What exactly do you expect from this conversation? (Not a rhetorical question. If you tell me what you want from me, there is a greater chance that I'll be able to deliver).

I'm struggling to imagine a reading of my last post that reaches this conclusion. — Mariner

Let me explain how I read the last few exchanges, and perhaps we can uncover where the miscommunication lies.

Here's how it looks from my point of view: I was asking you about your reasoning. You rejected that it had anything to do with reasoning. I asked why the term bothered you. You said it didn't reflect reflect reality. Those things that are not real are make believe. So It seemed like you were saying that reasoning was make believe. As little sense as it makes to me, I ask the question, hoping you'll clarify.

That question of yours is being "laid back"? — Mariner

They're questions. I'm trying to understand. Maybe you think they're rhetorical attacks, couched in questions, but they're not. They're questions. So yes, they are laid back. Sorry if that wasn't more clear. I am absolutely getting frustrated with our apparent inability to find any common points of discussion that might lead to some understanding, and that frustration might come out more than is ideal, but I'm trying to understand.

Yes, on this specific question of the nature of spirit, there was a singular, monolithic pre-Cartesian worldview. So, you don't have to read every book written before 1600 AD -- pick any book you like (including Shakespeare, incidentally) and you'll see it there. — Mariner

See, this is what I'm having a problem with. You just state authoritatively that there is a singular worldview. I say there wasn't. If you don't offer clarification, reasoning or evidence of your claim, then we are only left to "yes there was!" "no there wasn't!" like school children. Surely we can be better than that?

What exactly do you expect from this conversation? (Not a rhetorical question. If you tell me what you want from me, there is a greater chance that I'll be able to deliver). — Mariner

I want to understand the steps in thought that led from either having no conception or a previous, and different conception of spirituality, to your current conception of spirituality. I want to understand mentally how you got to where you were to where you are now.

So spiritual is synonymous with "life changing" then? — Reformed Nihilist

No. A spiritual experience is a life changing experience. If you are happy to talk about interior, and exterior, as experience of the world and experience of oneself, then I can be a bit more specific, that a spiritual experience is one that changes interior experience. But still you need to be a little charitable in understanding that I am not talking about the change from an empty to a full stomach. Thus losing a limb is no doubt a life-changing experience of the exterior life; it may or may not be also life changing in one's relation to oneself, and in such case it is also a spiritual experience. But one also talks about a 'spiritual person', or the spirit of the times, or as I mentioned before, of a group.

So spiritual is synonymous with "life changing" then? Why not say that? Or "transformative"? Why cop-opt terms of religion, with all the baggage and possibility of misunderstanding that it entails? I guess if the context makes it clear that there is no implied metaphysical baggage, then communicating however you want is fair game. I'm just saying that it often isn't clear. Not to the listener, and (more controversially) to the speaker. Let me give you a few quotes from this thread to highlight this: — Reformed Nihilist

You bring your own metaphysical baggage with you, and on that basis complain about another's.

To be devoid of spirituality is to be homeless. At least that's what it seems to me.

Compare:

The unexamined life is not worth living.

Surely the notion that something is life changing doesn't defy rational analysis? — Reformed Nihilist

Something that changes the rational analyst does exactly defy rational analysis.

We are destroyed and reformed all the time. Mostly it happens so gradually, little piece by little piece, that we don't notice, but sometimes we mark a specific event on the road if our reinvention as being epiphanous, because it is great enough in it's effect to move above the background noise of the constant change. How is that not a matter of intensity? If it isn't a matter of intensity, what is it a matter of? — Reformed Nihilist

Are you unaware of the religious metaphysical baggage of "epiphanous"? ;) But there is some confusion here. How are you aware of being destroyed and reformed all the time? Surely there needs to be a thread of constancy on which change hangs, and against which it can be compared. Or is this just a theoretical, metaphysical claim? I'm not even disagreeing with you here, except to clarify that an experience can be intense without changing the direction of one's life.

But I have the sense that you are just refusing to engage in an exploration of inner life, and in such case you can have no 'home' in which you can entertain such ideas.

But still you need to be a little charitable in understanding that I am not talking about the change from an empty to a full stomach. Thus losing a limb is no doubt a life-changing experience of the exterior life; it may or may not be also life changing in one's relation to oneself, and in such case it is also a spiritual experience. But one also talks about a 'spiritual person', or the spirit of the times, or as I mentioned before, of a group. — unenlightened

I'm trying to be charitable, which is why I keep asking questions, to make sure I do understand, or if not, to find out where the misunderstanding lies. So a spiritual experience is one that is life changing about one's sense of self? Doesn't that make it basically the same as "transformative", which wouldn't normally refer to incidental out exterior changes? If not, in what way is it distinct?

You bring your own metaphysical baggage with you, and on that basis complain about another's. — unenlightened

I don't think I've brought in any metaphysical assumptions beyond such brute concepts like "things are" and "communication is possible", and the sorts of things that should be uncontroversial and are necessary preconditions to meaningful discussion. What baggage are you talking about?

Something that changes the rational analyst does exactly defy rational analysis. — unenlightened

Agreed, but I think that I am/have been told the latter, not the former by some people in this thread, and in other discussions about the subject. Perhaps I misread/misunderstand them.

Are you unaware of the religious metaphysical baggage of "epiphanous — unenlightened

I was wondering if you'd pick that out. FWIW, I'm pretty sure the new sense of the term predates the challenging of spirit/body dualism/duality, so it doesn't have the same sort of baggage.

Surely there needs to be a thread of constancy on which change hangs, and against which it can be compared. Or is this just a theoretical, metaphysical claim? I'm not even disagreeing with you here, except to clarify that an experience can be intense without changing the direction of one's life. — unenlightened

Well, 98% of the atoms in our body are exchanged every year, yet we still consider it the same body. For some practical reasons, we seem to have to apply a sense continuity to objects and ideas that change slowly. We often feel that implies that there is a sort of "essential" "necessary" or "defining" quality, but that's just an assumption, and it doesn't add any explanatory power to things, so I didn't bring it into the discussion.

But I have the sense that you are just refusing to engage in an exploration of inner life, and in such case you can have no 'home' in which you can entertain such ideas. — unenlightened

I don't know where you get that sense. I'm often accused of being too introspective and self-contemplative, so that's an odd thing for people to think about me. I don't think it's true.

Does this forum have an aversion to looking up the words they are debating the meaning of in a dictionary?

Spirituality: noun
1
: something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such

2
: clergy

3
: sensitivity or attachment to religious values

4
: the quality or state of being spiritual

Spiritual: adjective

1
: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal spiritual needs

2
a : of or relating to sacred matters spiritual songs
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal : spiritual authority : lords spiritual

3
: concerned with religious values

4
: related or joined in spirit : our spiritual home : his spiritual heir

5
a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

So a spiritual experience is one that is life changing about one's sense of self? Doesn't that make it basically the same as "transformative", which wouldn't normally refer to incidental out exterior changes? If not, in what way is it distinct? — Reformed Nihilist

Yes, in that context, 'transformative' works fine. But if one were to talk of 'transformative practice' rather than 'spiritual practice', then it would be a strain; seeking is not always finding, though one seeks to find.

Well, 98% of the atoms in our body are exchanged every year, yet we still consider it the same body. For some practical reasons, we seem to have to apply a sense continuity to objects and ideas that change slowly. We often feel that implies that there is a sort of "essential" "necessary" or "defining" quality, but that's just an assumption, and it doesn't add any explanatory power to things, so I didn't bring it into the discussion. — Reformed Nihilist

Same thing happens to rivers, I don't think it's a problem; there is great explanatory power in noticing that there is a river in a certain place, the flow is rapid and yet one knows where to put a bridge. The river rises and falls with the seasons, and the water is ever-changing. But for a river to change its course is another kind of change that deserves its own language and understanding.

I don't know where you get that sense. I'm often accused of being too introspective and self-contemplative, so that's an odd thing for people to think about me. I don't think it's true. — Reformed Nihilist

Ok, my mistake.

Something that changes the rational analyst does exactly defy rational analysis.

If we can agree that there is the possibility of something real that defies analysis, then there is room in our discussion for terms that refer to it. There might be a possibility of some understanding that does not derive from analysis, but from analogy, or imagery, or whatever.

I asked why the term bothered you. You said it didn't reflect reflect reality. — Reformed Nihilist

.... if used to describe what I'm suggesting to you. To interpret that sentence as meaning "any and all reasoning, in every conceivable circumstance, does not reflect reality" is very curious, particularly if you read what I read right after it (I have already presented a reasoning, you disagreed and asked for evidence, reasonings don't provide evidence, etc.). Never mind though, let's proceed.

You just state authoritatively that there is a singular worldview. I say there wasn't. — Reformed Nihilist

Ok, and now I ask for evidence. Show me one pre-Cartesian work in which the notion of spirit is not used as a polarized concept (as explained earlier in the thread). Perhaps you can do it. If you do it, then I'll be shown to be wrong. It's no big deal to be wrong -- even if one "states authoritatively", which apparently is a criticism of style, and not of content.

I want to understand the steps in thought that led from either having no conception or a previous, and different conception of spirituality, to your current conception of spirituality. I want to understand mentally how you got to where you were to where you are now. — Reformed Nihilist

And the (abridged) list of pertinent authors did not help?

What I have done so far to help you understand the steps in thought from A to B:

1. Stated the thesis (polarized concepts)
2. Offered exercises to help you retrace the path, from the "universal human experience" (experience and experienced, remember? We were on the same page there) to a consistent notion of spirit:matter
3. Offered a (quite restricted) bibliography regarding how this subject is the theme of 20th century authors.

I don't know what else I can do. From my viewpoint, you appear to be budging at the idea of executing exercises from (2), but it's the best I have to offer.

Let me give you a starting point, from etymology (as I mentioned earlier, psychology is equally useful, and if you don't care about etymology it is surely more useful). "Matter" shares a common root with "mother". Try to re-enact, imaginatively, the kind of mind which dealt with matter as if it was related to mother. "Spirit", in its Latin and Greek ("pneuma") incarnations, is equivalent -- note, here it is not a matter of common roots, but of equivalence -- to "breath" or "wind".

What you should do now is the imaginative exercise of replacing references to "spirit" by "breath" or "wind" and try to put yourself in the equivalent consciousness of someone who discusses Spirituality in those terms. When, e.g., Plato wrote "spirit is X", read it as "breath is X".

This is not yet the "achieved consciousness" that must be sought after, because "breath" has a purely material connotation nowadays that it did not have in Plato's day. Ideally, when we read a Platonic reference to "spirit", we must imagine Plato's mind as dealing with "spirit+breath", the primordial concept out of which spirit and breath (as concepts) were developed.

I hope you see that what I'm suggesting to you has nothing to do with "reasonings". But if you do those imaginative exercises, it will be easier for you to observe (and it is an observation -- a direct observation -- i.e., not a conclusion from a reasoning) that spirit:matter cannot be dealt with as if they were separate substances.

If you ask me, the main vice of post-Cartesian philosophy is to deal with delicate and mostly pragmatic distinctions as if they were absolute separations.

Yes, in that context, 'transformative' works fine. But if one were to talk of 'transformative practice' rather than 'spiritual practice', then it would be a strain; seeking is not always finding, though one seeks to find. — unenlightened

You just made a jump that I'm not sire I'm following. What's a spiritual practice? Behaviours designed to change one's sense of self? To what end? Wouldn't you want to change it to whatever you preferred, and then leave it that way (practice often implies long term change from repeated iterations)? I know I'm generally good with my sense of self, so gradual, incremental change works for me. Perhaps if one were very dissatisfied with themselves and their life I could see the allure.

Same thing happens to rivers, I don't think it's a problem; there is great explanatory power in noticing that there is a river in a certain place, the flow is rapid and yet one knows where to put a bridge. The river rises and falls with the seasons, and the water is ever-changing. But for a river to change its course is another kind of change that deserves its own language and understanding. — unenlightened

Given enough time, the course of a river changes too. We only call it a different river when a catastrophic event causes it to change suddenly. It's the slowness of the change that gives the illusion of an element of permanence or continuity. I don't see any difference. The same is true with people. The most clear case is when someone looses all executive function. This happened to my brother, who passed a number of years ago. He was lying in a hospital bed, devoid of thought, perception, or agency, when the day before he had these things. My mother said that he was no longer there. His identity was changed to such a dramatic extent that it was essentially annihilated as something that was a result of his body, and now only exists as a memory. To a lesser extent, people who have traumatic brain injury or stroke are often characterized as no longer being their old self. So again, you can add another layer, but it doesn't explain things any better than doing without it, as far as I can see.

If we can agree that there is the possibility of something real that defies analysis, then there is room in our discussion for terms that refer to it. There might be a possibility of some understanding that does not derive from analysis, but from analogy, or imagery, or whatever. — unenlightened

Sorry, I think I misread you previously. I think that rational analysis and realness are 100% unrelated. You can do rational analysis on the effectiveness of Frodo's route to Mordor, and you can babble nonsensicaly about main street. I can't imagine what non-rational analysis would look like excepting irrational analysis, which I imagine we both think would be a bad idea. If you think there's something beyond or outside of that, you'll need to clarify.

You just made a jump that I'm not sire I'm following. What's a spiritual practice? — Reformed Nihilist

Prayer, meditation, self-flaggelation, peyote consumption, self-hypnosis, psychoanalysis, I don't want to draw an exact boundary, but people talk about spiritual practices, like retreats. It may all be nonsense in the sense of being ineffective, it may all not suit you or me, but it is a meaningful term for some effort to change oneself that has a long history and a current popularity.

Wouldn't you want to change it to whatever you preferred, and then leave it that way (practice often implies long term change from repeated iterations)? I know I'm generally good with my sense of self, so gradual, incremental change works for me. — Reformed Nihilist

I don't understand this. X would prefer to be Y. So perhaps X becomes Y by some gradual or sudden transformation. What does Y prefer? Not obviously what X preferred. This might even be a roundabout, where Y would prefer to be X. Is there then a possibility that X and Y can agree to get off the roundabout? Or would Y prefer to be Z? Then what would Z prefer? But if you say that Y prefers to be Y just as X preferred to be Y, then I might wonder if X has changed at all.

Sorry, I think I misread you previously. I think that rational analysis and realness are 100% unrelated. You can do rational analysis on the effectiveness of Frodo's route to Mordor, and you can babble nonsensicaly about main street. I can't imagine what non-rational analysis would look like excepting irrational analysis, which I imagine we both think would be a bad idea. If you think there's something beyond or outside of that, you'll need to clarify. — Reformed Nihilist

Yeah, we seem to be totally at cross purposes here, and it is crucial, on my side. Let's leave unreality out for now. I said nothing about non-rational analysis. Can the rational analyser rationally analyse a change in the rational analyser? Consider this in relation to my previous post, and then consider if there might be something that is not analysable. My suggestion is that analysis has a limit, but understanding can exceed this limit, by means that are not analytical. That is not to say that they are irrational, necessarily.

In the terms of the previous post, perhaps X,Y, Z, in some combination might understand that something
else is possible, because it is necessary. And from that understanding something else comes.

Ok, and now I ask for evidence. Show me one pre-Cartesian work in which the notion of spirit is not used as a polarized concept (as explained earlier in the thread). Perhaps you can do it. If you do it, then I'll be shown to be wrong. It's no big deal to be wrong -- even if one "states authoritatively", which apparently is a criticism of style, and not of content. — Mariner

This is where were going in circles. I think your answering a different question than I'm asking, so your appeal to the previous explanation of spirituality doesn't help me. You seem to be telling me what pedogogic techniques will best work for me. You seem to be advising me on how to learn. That's not what I'm here for, and I think I have a better handle on which methods work best for me.

So when I keep asking for your reasoning, I'm just asking for the thought process that goes on when selecting this particular conception of the way things are among the other alternatives,because that's what helps me understand concepts. Why is this one preferable to others? If you give me that, then I will have at least the starting point that I need to better understand. Is there a problem with doing that?

Prayer, meditation, self-flaggelation, peyote consumption, self-hypnosis, psychoanalysis, I don't want to draw an exact boundary, but people talk about spiritual practices, like retreats. It may all be nonsense in the sense of being ineffective, it may all not suit you or me, but it is a meaningful term for some effort to change oneself that has a long history and a current popularity. — unenlightened

I'm not currently concerned with efficacy, I'm just trying to see if what we're talking about is both coherent and isn't a sort of unintentional conceptual Trojan horse for religious ideas.

Here's my issue. First, most of the items in the list have an historical connection to religions. Second, most of these practices aren't proported to offer a dramatic, changing the course of your life, experience. If they do offer experiences that change your life, it is well understood that it is gradual, iterative change. Peyote eating is the exception, I guess. I only know what I've seen in the movies and my experiences is mushrooms and lsd.

So the concept of spiritual, as you apply it to experiences, seems to mean something different than what it means in terms of practices, and when applied to practices has some analogues to the traditional religious use of the word.

Consider this in relation to my previous post, and then consider if there might be something that is not analysable — unenlightened

I don't know what it would mean to be non-analysable. Analysis is something that we do, not a property of something. I could imagine that an analysis could feel unsatisfactory or inconclusive, but I'm not convinced that wouldn't say more about the failings of the analysis than about the subject of the analysis. Saying that you can't analyse something is like saying you can't look for something.

Regarding the XYZ stuff, and the "analysing the analyser" stuff, I don't think I see the point you're making. It just seems like a needlessly complex framing of something that maybe isn't that complex.

I don't know what it would mean to be non-analysable. Analysis is something that we do, not a property of something. I could imagine that an analysis could feel unsatisfactory or inconclusive, but I'm not convinced that wouldn't say more about the failings of the analysis than about the subject of the analysis. Saying that you can't analyse something is like saying you can't look for something.

Regarding the XYZ stuff, and the "analysing the analyser" stuff, I don't think I see the point you're making. It just seems like a needlessly complex framing of something that maybe isn't that complex. — Reformed Nihilist

Then I don't know how to go on, I'm afraid.

First, most of the items in the list have an historical connection to religions. — Reformed Nihilist

That is about the sum of your objections to many things said in this thread, isn't it? ';Sounds religious'. It's like the topography of an underground object, the part of the iceberg below the water-line - you can only sense its outlines, but anything associated with 'religious baggage' is rejected on that account. Excludes a lot of ideas.

Then I don't know how to go on, I'm afraid. — unenlightened

I could make a few suggestions?

You could give me your take on the discordance between the use of "spiritual experience" and "spiritual practice" that I pointed out.

You could explain what it would mean for something to be non-analysable, and how that would be distinct from it being poorly analysed or nonsensical.

Or not. It's all good.

That is about the sum of your objections to many things said in this thread, isn't it? ';Sounds religious'. It's like the topography of an underground object, the part of the iceberg below the water-line - you can only sense its outlines, but anything associated with 'religious baggage' is rejected on that account. Excludes a lot of ideas. — Wayfarer

Sorry, but I'm not rejecting that there is an idea called spirituality, nor any other idea based on it being religious. I'm questioning things about they way the word is being used in a non-religious context.

I don't think it's controversial to say that the history of the word is associated with religion and religious beliefs and religious metaphysical assumptions. If someone wants to use it in that context, then it makes sense to me. I'm suggesting that the way that the word is commonly used today, in the "I'm spiritual, but not religious" sort of way, ends up not being as distinct and separate from religion as the utterer is intending. I'm saying that it's analogous to saying "he's not fat, he's full bodied". When you dig into the claim, you find that it's essentially the same thing, just without a connotation that the speaker doesn't like. So although I have them, my point here isn't to make judgments about the value of engaging in spirituality or religion, but just to clarify what, or even if, there is a meaningful distinction between the traditional, religious use of "spiritual" and the more modern, ostensibly secular meaning. I hope that clarifies, because the quoted post seems to characterize me as grinding an axe or intentionally blindfolding myself to an area of inquiry.