If you aren't willing to expand your knowledge, then your loss, not mine. — Harry Hindu

You know that sounds very judgmental and insulting, right? For no reason that I can think of either. You're free to pursue whatever course of interests you find appealing, as am I. Just because a particular area of interest isn't one we share isn't call to say that I'm "not willing to expand my knowledge", implying that I embrace ignorance for some reason. I don't appreciate the implication. It's not called for, and on top of that, it's also intellectually lazy. The flaw in the logic behind "RN isn't interested in pursuing information about X, therefore RN isn't interested in perusing knowledge period" should be obvious. Have some pride. Be smarter and kinder.

I don't think philosophy is nothing but conjecture, and when it becomes that, I am critical of it. Philosophy has the ability to probe the coherence and value of different ways of thinking or speaking about things. That's more than just conjecture.

The field explores the problems our ancestors had to solve and the mental processes and functions that would solve them and how that explains our current condition. — Harry Hindu

Yes I understand what the field covers. That doesn't really answer my question.

If you're asking the questions, then it seems that you ate interested and would probably garner more information if you didn't take my word for it, but rather get it straight from the scientists in the field. — Harry Hindu

Only if you assume that the answer is that the field is more than conjecture. My impression is based on the opinion of a science communicator that I generally find to be well balanced and sensible.That doesn't mean he's right, but it does give me an indication that maybe it's not worth putting at the top of my list, unless I see other reasons to do so.

Well, I consider explaining the reasons we think the way we do and behave the way we do quite important. The unexamined life isn't worth living. — Harry Hindu

I am actually more interested in what the ways we think (and specifically decide) are, rather than the historical causes for these ways of thinking. If I thought that there was a reliable method for determining the causal history of our thinking and decision making processes, I might be interested. I'm just skeptical that such a thing exists.

I'm not suggesting that evolution wouldn't, in principle, apply to psychology. I'm under the impression that in practice, the field of evolutionary psychology is largely conjectural, and there's little to be had between two alternate explanations of a given psychological trait. Is that not the case?

Regarding keeping myself educated, it's all about prioritizing, right? Apart from educating myself for direct personal or professional gain, the rest is just following my nose. I pretty much look into whatever seems interesting to me at the time. At the moment, evolutionary psychology doesn't make that cut. Maybe that'll change.

yet say evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of conjecture. — Harry Hindu

I haven't concluded it just a bunch of conjecture, it's just an impression I have (admittedly an underinformed impression). I'm just not sure how evolutionary psychology is falsifiable. If it's not, then doesn't that make calling it conjecture fair?

Sure! Then it's no longer an implication of evolution. — Wayfarer

Right. That's what I said. I feel as though you mean that ironically for some reason, as if thinking everything should be "an implication of evolution", because I think evolution is a good theory for the explanation of biological diversity.

Regarding the liability issue, insurance is the answer. A sole proprietor buys insurance as does a corporation, in order to protect assets. — Cavacava

If they both do the same, then what is the distinction? How is that the answer, if the answer is the same regardless of incorporation or proprietorship?

I don't think so. Culture evolves, doesn't it? Evolutionary psychology and related disciplines make use of an evolutionary perspective. And more to the point, one of the consequences of evolutionary theory, generally, is that everything about h. sapiens is ultimately a product of evolution. Isn't it? If not, why? — Wayfarer

So it is your position that as soon as I say that the theory of evolution by natural selection is a good descriptive theory, everything else I ever say means "according to evolution...(add what I said)"? I also believe in the explanatory power of Quantum Mechanics. Why aren't you busting on me for saying that the search for meaning is a result of QM? Because in a normal discussion, people understand that these are theoretical frameworks, proposed to be usefully descriptive about a specific subject matter, not overarching ideologies (even if they have broad implications). You want to criticize evolutionary psychology? Sounds good to me. I'm skeptical that the field isn't much more than unfalsifiable conjecture. But for the love of whatever you find holy, surely you can see a difference between the conceptual framework of biological evolution through natural selection and cultural history? They're two distinct and exclusive ways of framing an issue.

The corporate structure has several advantages for stockholders. Sure protection of the shareholder from personal liability is important but I think corporate structure as a way of holding ownership is why people choose to incorporate. A corporation issues shares of ownership so that the risks and profits of the business can be shared among many owners on a pro-rata basis. It is also taxed differently than an individual, and is treated differently in bankruptcy. — Cavacava

I wonder if it's possible to have a model for investment that doesn't include limited liability, and I'm wondering if that would have negative or positive consequences.

Corporations are treated like persons in order for them to conduct business to enter into contracts, I don't agree with all the exceptions provided to corporations as you indicate, but they have long standing in courts. Corporations have to able to act as individual entities, but to what extent? — Cavacava

Why do they have to? Why can't they act as a bunch of individuals within a hierarchical power structure, with responsibility and being commensurate with decision making power? What would the effects be if they acted that way?

I've had good and bad customer service experiences. The fully automated systems make me peevish,
"I said no"..."what did you say, I think you said no...is that correct? Arrgh! Caught in a capitalist time loop. Or you get connected to customer service room located is some very foreign country where basic communication is challenged and you suspect it is a kind of revenge for asking. — Cavacava

I am not a fan of that, but I was talking more about the robotic responses that come from a well rehearsed script. I have a problem with Virgin mobile that got quite contentious, but they still signed off on their public responses (twitter and facebook) with "luv Virgin". It was clearly disingenuous, and no real person in the midst of a hotly disputed conflict would speak this way (unless it was sarcastic).

How do you transcribe "cultural artifact" into "evolved trait"? Aren't they conceptually opposing ideas?

Not 'anything you say' - the specific thing you said. Namely, that 'the search for meaning' is an evolved trait. Don't make statements like:' What if the purpose of the universe was to glorify shrimp?' and then protest because someone jumps on it. — Wayfarer

When did I say the search for meaning was an evolved trait? That's my point. You're arguing against things I didn't say. What I'm actually saying is that the search for a "higher purpose" is a cultural artifact, which is entirely different from saying it is an evolved trait.

Dennett is probably among the best-known public intellectuals in the US. And, it is a fact that what he understands as philosophy, undermines or tends to dissolve anything that was previously understood as 'philosophy'. That was the central message of one of his books, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where he compares evolutionary biology to a 'universal acid': — Wayfarer

Wow, that's a big leap of logic. His theories purport to subsume, dissolve, or correct previous/alternate theories on a particular subject matter, like every other theory ever proposed. That's a far cry from claiming that "philosophy books have nothing meaningful to say". You might as well say that Hawking says that physics books have nothing meaningful to say. He just thinks other theories are mistaken or incomplete. That's sort of his job.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that is at issue. It is the attempt to 'explain' the history of philosophy and religion in terms of adaptive necessity. — Wayfarer

That's not what I said. What I said was "my guess...". Nothing about adaptive necessity at all. Just my personal read on how a culture and it's history can effect a person's view on matters like an "overriding" purpose. It's no different than theorizing why the Japanese language had no word for "self-esteem" until recently, which no doubt points to a cultural and historical difference between Japan and the west.

It is just the kind of thing that fills books by Dennett and Dawkins. — Wayfarer

Need I once more protest that Dennett, Dawkins, and I are all different people who think and say distinct things? I feel like there is a poisoning of the well here. Anything I say that somehow reminds someone of either Dennett or Dawkins (or both simultaneously), gets viewed as if it fits perfectly into the narrative of either (or both) of those guys, and then is dismissed, ad hominem, because of the alleged source (which isn't even the source). It's just a logical mess. Do you mind if it stops? It's exhausting trying to defend them against implications I never made.

But where do you find those books? Why, in the 'philosophy' section of popular bookstores, snuggled alongside the Family Bible and Deepak Chopra. But unlike them, they claim that 'philosophy books have nothing meaningful to say'. But, why do they not fall by the same criteria? If what they are saying is correct, their authors are simply chimps standing on a mound of dirt, making 'boo' noises. After all, that's what they say philosophy is. — Wayfarer

You use quotes around the sentence "philosophy books have nothing meaningful to say". Who are you quoting? Where do they claim that? Are you sure that's really either one of their positions? Seeing as though Daniel Dennett is a writer of philosophy books, I suspect you're mistaken.

I agree that helping others is an independent good, the problem is that it is subservient to mindless.
reproduction. — Andrew4Handel

What does that mean? Who makes it subservient? By what method of categorization is it subservient? By evolution? Well, in terms of what is most successful in reproduction, yes, reproduction (mindless or mindful) is at the top of the list. It doesn't logically follow that because someone accepts evolution as an effective explanatory model that they also prioritize reproduction personally as being more important than doing good.

As an antinatalist I feel a sense of futility when helping people. For instance the population of Ethiopia has tripled since the 1980's and Famine aid. Malnutrition related disease are a big problem there. — Andrew4Handel

So because there is still harm done, all attempts at help are futile? More flawed logic. Even if we assumed that all help offered by a person to another or others added only to a drop in the bucket compared to all harm done (which I don't think is true), then it is still the case that the world is at least minimally better for the help.

Empathy and helping people is not an unmitigated good. The same instincts have been posited to play a role in war and prejudice.

True. Does that imply that we should stop trying to do good? Or does it imply that we should be more careful when trying to do good to avoid ending up doing evil?

If there is no over riding point then I don't see the point in anything, it is just a set of distractions. I didn't used to see life as meaningless as a child for some reason. I thought it was going somewhere. I thought it had a purpose. I am hoping it turns out to have a meaning. — Andrew4Handel

Well, you can feel that way if you want, but it's not very sensible in my opinion. What makes you think that life is supposed to have an objective purpose? My guess is that it's a cultural artifact created by a religious history that purported to offer that meaning. Let me ask you this: If there was an over-riding purpose, and you didn't like it or agree with it, what then? What if the purpose of the universe was to glorify shrimp?

As promised, I reviewed your posts, hopefully with a different eye. Let me see if I understand what you're saying.

Would it be fair to say that in the same way that an average Joe sees the world through the lens of "naive realism", that what you're talking about as the unified outlook on the spirit/matter question pre-Descartes might be described as "naive monism"? That people in general neither saw a distinction between the two, nor did it occur to anyone to question if there should be a distinction. Is that correct? Is that what you are suggesting I need understand before I can understand what spirituality is?

All I'm telling you is how I weigh different considerations, in what I see as a contrast to how you weigh different things. You're not seeing it as relevant because you weigh things in a different way, which you regard as self-evident (just as I do mine!) and you're puzzled that I wouldn't accord the same weight as you do to different considerations. That's my take on that, anyway. I think you are having the same difficulty with un, because you have a sort of instinctively-scientific manner of speaking. I don't mean I and un have the same views, we are quite different, but in this respect the issues are the same. — mcdoodle

It's not differing priorities. I love art too. I studied theater in college, not philosophy or science. I only know Daniel Kahneman from one interview I saw him do, but I admit I was fascinated by him too. So we actually share an outlook on two of these three things.

I'm not treating anything as being self-evident either. IMO, that's an intellectually lazy stance, and I try to avoid it. I may be assuming that people share my understanding of certain facts, or some basic underlying beliefs about the world. Nothing controversial though. Just ideas like X=X, that we all, more or less, share an experience of the world, or that making a judgement of "better" or "worse" is something it is possible to agree upon with people. I'm even open to explanation or disagreement on these points in theory, although at some point a person might have to call pedantry if we can't agree on the most basic underpinnings of conversation.

The purpose of the discussion, from my point of view, is to determine if a) there are relevant facts that either person hadn't considered or known about, b) there is flawed reasoning employed that one of the people didn't realize, or c) there is a better way to frame the issue than either or both people had considered. That pretty much requires approaching the issue from different paradigms.That should be a good thing, not a bad thing.

Modern blindsight and Anton-Baninski syndrome are (a) still mysteries - why does a person invent such a story? and (b) not clear guides, at least not to me, about anything but the specific problems themselves. — mcdoodle

Everything is always a mystery if you keep asking why. That's the nature of the question "why?". That doesn't mean we don't know things, and the things we know indicate that the things we once thought were indicative of spirits (treppaning was alleged to let evil spirits escape through the skull), are actually indicative of the brain. Regarding Anton Babinski syndrom, the patient doesn't invent a story, they tell the truth as they believe it to be. They think they can see, and the reactions they have toward disconfirming evidence are the sorts of confabulations that mentally healthy people perform all the time when presented with cognitive dissonance.

What sort of guide do you mean? I personally assume that (among other things) having the most relevant facts, and the best possible information in any situation offers me the means to make the best decisions. Knowing that the things I feel and the impulses I have are the product of a brain that has flaws, some of which are predictable, allows me to employ personal, social and environmental mechanisms to offset my natural failings. For what it's worth, meditation and self-reflection (often associated with spirituality) are part of that.

But I see when you move on to identity more clearly what you mean. Here though your argument seems more to be against subjectivity than against spirituality. — mcdoodle

I don't even know what it would mean to argue against subjectivity. One way to talk about the world is "from the viewpoint of the subject". No argument that there is such a viewpoint. If I am doing something close to that, it is arguing against conflating a subjective point of view with spirituality.

Perhaps it would be plainer if I just quoted Wordsworth, as a for-instance, of the sort of spirituality I'm groping to say I embrace:: — mcdoodle

So to you, spiritual is synonymous with profound? If so, why not use that term instead of one laden with metaphysical baggage (same question I asked un)?

I feel like I'm getting jumped on for saying "whatever you call spirituality is wrong and bad, because I don't like whatever it is you like", and I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that calling those things you like "spiritual", might be a bad way to label them. Bad, because labeling it so can lead to equivocation and sloppy reasoning by importing metaphysical baggage with the label that you don't necessarily believe in or need.

Explain the treatment of homosexuality then.

Theorists are attempting to explain homosexuality as having adaptive advantage. They are not happy with it just being a spandrel. — Andrew4Handel

The fact that some traits are (or in this case, might be) adaptive doesn't logically imply that all are. The fact that theorists attempt to explain traits in terms of adaptiveness also doesn't logically imply that all traits are adaptive. That's just flawed logic.

What purpose could we be said to have? In a trivial sense someone can claim watching paint dry is their purpose. But this kind of invented purpose lacks profundity and also it can be given a deflationary evolutionary explanation. — Andrew4Handel

Whether a purpose is profound or not is a matter of judgement, not fact. A purpose imposed by a creator seems more arbitrary than one decided for one's self, and that arbitrariness lacks profundity to me. That's my judgement. You're welcome to your own. It is also not the job of a scientific theory to lend purpose, profound or otherwise to life. It's job is to effectively explain our observations, which the theory of evolution by natural selection does very well.

The problem with evolution on some interpretations is that it reduces or deflates human claims. For example you could help an elderly person cross the road with genuine kindness and altruism but that disposition is seen as primarily in service of the survival of the genes. — Andrew4Handel

So if something is good for our species, it cannot also be good in itself? How do you make that leap of logic? That's like saying that we can't eat food because it tastes good, because we all know that we eat food because it nourishes us. Both can be true. They are not mutually exclusive.

I don't see modern advances in work on 'identity' and 'personality', though. What sort of thing do you mean? Could you be specific? — mcdoodle

Here are four things, commonly associated with the spirit or soul, that I listed earlier in this thread:

Our sense of locality inside or outside of our body

The mediator between our perceptions and our beliefs

The mediator between the world and our memories.

and the host of our better angels

The case for personality is easy to make. People have traumatic brain injuries and their personalities change. Which part of the brain is predictive of what sort of personality change will occur. That's something that happens, and makes a pretty strong case for the brain being the sole seat of personality.

The other three links are elements of our sense of identity. The fact that "we" create memories, feel as though "we" are "within" (or outside of) our bodies, and that "we" have perceptions. The reason I use quotations around "we" is to highlight that each of these things feel like they are separate from the the physical processes, so we intuit or postulate that there is an essential element of ourselves that these things are happening to. When we look at the process, we can now understand the processes without having to postulate a separate "we".

I would tend to cite the arts - painting, sculpture, drama, novels and poetry - as influencing how I feel about identity and personality, which is not exactly 'evidence' in the way you're speaking of it. That's why I lean towards spirituality as having something to say to me, because the aesthetic has something to say to me, and for me to express through it, and the realms of understanding seem to be akin. Daniel Kahneman, for instance, has keen insights into how we think, but there aren't many of him per generation, compared to the insightful creative writers, and he does come to a sort of limit in his puzzlement over why we are the way we are. (But I've been a fiction writer, perhaps that's just my bias, I don't know) — mcdoodle

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Here's what I'm getting out of this: You enjoy art. You enjoy spirituality (whatever that means to you), and you anjoy the work of Daniel Kahneman. You see value in all of these things. If that's what you're saying, then good on you. I just don't see how that's relevant to what I'm saying.

I don't see how the Dawkins quote implies that you are in service of evolution.

Regarding the equivalence, they are equivalent insofar as they are ideas being adopted as justifications for bad acts. How is the degree of harm relevant?

Design makes purpose and meaning somewhat inevitable. A spoon has a purpose and meaning for us. — Andrew4Handel

Not at all. A creator could be acting arbitrarily. A creator could not care. A creator could be free of intention totally. A thing only has meaning and purpose if we assume a creator is intentional like we are. At that point though, all you have determined is the the creator has it's own meaning and a purpose for what it created. There's no reason to assume that it's meaningful to us or gives us any purpose.

If we are here solely by chance and with no intention we are here for no reason with no purpose. Any meaning is accidental. — Andrew4Handel

You've already established that purpose is created, not inherent with your spoon analogy. Why is a spoons purpose ok when we create it, but creating purpose for ourselves not ok?

Education, social cohesion, politics, personal relations. We turn the analytical gaze onto the material, and we come up with all this amazing stuff, transport, communication devices, new etc etc. We turn it on ourselves and we come up with what? Increasing mental illness increasing stress and unhappiness, poorer education, less stable societies, more isolation. And these latter are all fuzzy things to the extent that they can be denied, so I won't be trying to convince you if you see things differently. — unenlightened

Well, a person could make a standard by which to judge these things, and then measure reality against that standard. Then things wouldn't be so fuzzy. What does a good education constitute of? Make a list, match that against both current education and past education, and you have a very unfuzzy answer to whether education is poorer or not.

But I see it so - I see a crisis of developing material control, and loss of personal control, and the proliferation of self-help coaching counselling therapeutic nonsense is symptomatic of the same depersonalising scientistic view with added advertising woo. If the job is machines, precision and no fluff; if the job is people, something very different is required. — unenlightened

I never understood this implied dichotomy. We don't write novels or woo mates with scientific method, but we still write novels and woo mates. I honestly think this is just a romanticizing of days gone by, when we didn't have cold science and cold machines sucking our souls. The fact is that people have felt despair since we have records of people talking about such things. What makes you think that this is specifically is the result of a materialist worldview?

Throughout its history it has been used in various ways to justify ideologies and actions. The worst examples stem from The Nazis ( "Alles leben ist kampf"), eugenics and communists. This should concern us I think, when a theory can be interpreted in such a damaging way. This is not usually the case with ideas in science such as gravity or Quantum physics. — Andrew4Handel

Not entirely true. Quantum physics is being interpreted in such ways that basically say "magic is real" and then being used by con artists and hucksters to fleece people. See also Scientology. Not Quantum mechanics, but also a misappropriation of science to legitimize bad behavior. It's not rare for bad actors to use science, religion, politics, nationalism, or whatever else to lend an air of legitimacy to their nonsense.

On one account evolution is deflationary and destructive of purpose and meaning and all action can be seen in the light of attempts at brute survival. I have not heard pf a positive account of evolution although some people talk as if it involved progress which is controversial. — Andrew4Handel

I don't understand what this means. I have no idea why evolution is destructive of purpose or meaning, unless you are suggesting that purpose and meaning can only come from a creator, and evolution makes the likelihood of a creator less.

Regarding a "positive" account of evolution, why should there be such a thing? Is there a positive account for general relativity? Godel's incompleteness theory? These are analytical tools used for explaining and making predictions about the world. The only positive accounts should be "they are logically self-coherent and they cohere with the available evidence. That's all a good theory is supposed to do.

In a trivial way it easy to claim anything we do is ultimately a survival trait regardless of our intentions. i don't like being in service of this system. — Andrew4Handel

That would show a failure to understand how evolution works. The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't imply that all traits are best suited for survival (adaptive). There are non-adaptive traits:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_07

As far as being in service to it, I' don't know what that means either, unless you are saying you don't want to be an evolutionary scientist, which is, I think, fine by everyone.

Perhaps that is where I'm finding the discussion particularly difficult, that you want me to dispel the fuzziness, and I cannot. The eye can see an image of the eye, we know we have eyes and see things, but the more one analyses vision, into wavelengths of reflected light, light-sensitive cells, electrical impulses, and computation, the more one loses any understanding that we see the world at all; either there must be a homunculus watching a screen in our heads, or there is just a buzzing of brain cells with nobody there at all. In this case it is clear that vision emerges from all this brain-science and optics, but isn't there at all in the constituents, so the analysis inevitably misses its target, which does not mean that it isn't valuable to understand the components, but does mean that one cannot resolve vision into direct, or indirect realism or idealism, or irrealism, at least, not by analysis. — unenlightened

We do have a choice how we frame this, and what conceptual models we accept or reject, right? Wouldn't we want to reject the ones that are fuzzy and accept the ones more clear? Unless the fuzzy one offers something we can't get from the clearer one. Do you think it does? I don't see it.

There is no objectively right way to frame something, but there are ways that can pretty universally be considered better or worse, right? You don't use QM to build a bridge, and you don't make a Higgs boson with classical physics. You frame the conception to fit the job. I just don't see what job is best suited to the framing you're proposing.

Which simply reaffirms the point that I was making - that your reason for rejecting 'spirituality' is that it is too near religion. — Wayfarer

I have different reasons for rejecting spirituality, but they are not relevant to this discussion. I think you're jumping to conclusions regarding my motives with very little evidence. Do you mind if we park the question of my motivations for another time?

Regarding the quotation 'alleged immaterial reality' - this could be understood as 'the attempt to depict something which is exceedingly hard to perceive, by those who don't perceive it, and therefore doubt it's reality.' — Wayfarer

I have no idea how you go from here to there. The first is a metaphysical model, the second is a commentary about perception and belief. I don't see how one could be understood as the other. It may be true that because if a difficulty on accurate perception, people believe a specific, and mistaken, metaphysical model, but that doesn't make one thing the other.

From what I know, some people's brains are just built in such a way that they require medication for their entire life to remain functioning and to have a shot at some level of contentment. I would feel very nervous about my partner going off of meds, even though it's been years since she was in a bad psychological place.

I feel like you're trying to go for a "the eye cannot see itself" idea here, but if the thing (or one of the things) that the psyche does is makes conceptual models, then why can't it make one of itself? I'm still missing a step or two here.

And also still fuzzy on how the psyche relates to the previously described spirituality. Does the other thread give insight into that? I haven't had time to dig into that yet.

Edit: I feel like you've just taken a paradigm and applied it to another subject, without any reason to do so. Why would it be different than saying "the painter can't paint themselves"? Even the notion that the eye can't see itself seems to willfully ignore the existence of mirrors.

Well that just makes me feel... I don't know. I'm really glad. Cat's pajamas.

I would say that I have personally avoided medication, but my partner takes medication for a mood disorder, and it's a life changer. I guess I'm saying that in some cases it's worth not taking that off the table. I think that a person needs to use judgement, and talk to a doctor to figure that out.

What did I do? I hope I was right and it was helpful.

Actually, a wikipedia entry that is nearer the mark is that on higher consciousness. — Wayfarer

I'm more talking about Contemporary spirituality and Modern spirituality. Under either or both of which Higher consciousness may or may not fall.

I find it interesting that both parts of the entry refer to "spiritual but not religious", and that under the heading of contemporary spirituality reads the following:

It embraces the idea of an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality — Wikipedia

(and that's a line with a citation).

So I'll just restate in that context that there seems to be an attempt to talk about something that is separate and distinct from religion, while still including all the foundational suppositions of religion.

Are you familiar with qualitative research and the study of morality in both the fields of sociology and psychology? How do these fit into your claim?

I'm sure that I'm just commenting on that, yes. — praxis

Then we agree.

I'm not questioning the motivations of those who think about themselves in those terms. I was one once, as were most of my friends and a great number of people I knew casually. I'm questioning the distinction, not between someone who calls themselves spiritual and someone who calls themselves religious, but rather if there is a difference between the religious conception of spirituality and the secular one.

But what I think your posts convey is that you're cautiously open-minded towards the possibility of there being 'spiritual truths' but that in effect they are so hard to distinguish from religious dogmas that you can't accept them on those grounds. — Wayfarer

Well, to be transparent, everything I believe is provisional, but I currently have a high degree of confidence in my judgement concerning the value of spiritualism (at least as I conceive it) as something I am personally interested in engaging in, nor do I suspect I will find value in considering something as a "spiritual truth". I find truth without any categoricals works for me. That shouldn't matter though, as I'm not so much trying to determine the value of spiritualism as a practice, but more probing the coherence of the idea when separated from religious presuppositions.

The essential distinction is between following and finding your own way, I believe.

This is a meaningful distinction because a major issue with religion is in its power to influence, and unfortunately power seems to corrupt pretty reliably.

A critique of finding your own way might be that doesn't have the power to unite people in common values and purpose. — praxis

Ok, so I would formulate the traditional use of the term as meaning "of or relating to the spirit". How would you translate your proposed new meaning? Are you sure you aren't just making a commentary on people who claim to be spiritual but not religious (Because I agree that would be an accurate description of them).

Although I have problems with Davidson's conception of truth as it is described in that book, I'll capitulate that there are proposed models that have the truth as something unanalyzable. I suppose it would also be similar to Kant's Noumena. Either way, the logical qualities of the category exclude analysis. I'm not deeply versed in Davidson, but I assume that there are putatively good reasons proposed for conceiving of the truth in such a way that it is unanalysable. Are there similarly good reasons for conceiving of spirituality this way? If so, please elaborate.

The next hurdle is that to conceive of spirituality as unanalysable, we seem to have slipped back into a more general conception, where it roughly means "subjective", right? The fact that it's life altering doesn't make it unanalysable? Just that it's subjective or self-reflective, or something along those lines? I still don't follow how we get from "something can be unanalysable" to "spirituality is unanalysable".

Regarding psychoanalysis, I actually typed something out to that effect, and deleted it before I posted. I thought it was just a little on the rhetorical nose. X-)

Here I don't agree with your argument, 'the reason we even seem to have this conception...' You're placing yourself in the Dennett/Dawkins argument here, that you the scientific sympathiser somehow know better about the origins of spiritual feelings - or 'conceptions' - than people who believe in the spiritual; and that spiritual knowing is in some way in competition with scientific knowing, so then as scientific knowing becomes supposedly more 'successful', so spiritual knowing should accept its comparative failure. — mcdoodle

You've misunderstood me here. I'm telling you how I see the history of the idea, and within that history, what makes sense to me about how the term is now used. I'm not saying I know better, I'm just saying what makes sense to me, and trying to explain why. That's what we're doing here, right?

As for the rest, I don't know how to respond. I'm not really talking about the primacy of science, I'm just saying that there is way more evidence regarding how things like identity, personality and perception work than there was in the past, and some of it accounts for things that were previously accounted for by what was called a soul or spirit. So I don't know if you're saying the evidence is wrong, or that there's something else that takes precedence over the evidence or that there is a different way of looking at the evidence.

It seems to me that you have concluded that because people can tie themselves up into knots of logic, that they necessarily must tie themselves up into knots of logic.

The truth isn't un-analysable. If we say that the truth is the condition of a statement, then there's nothing wrong with that statement also being true. any more than it would be wrong for a tshirt with writing on it to say "this tshirt has writing on it". There's nothing wrong with circularity in logic, because that's all logic does. All logic is circular. It tests the coherence of statements against other statements. It doesn't add anything.

So whether you agree with this or not, it indicates a general form of radical necessary circularity that frustrates the attempt at analysis. This is what my needlessly complex framing was intended to demonstrate about your
Wouldn't you want to change it to whatever you preferred, and then leave it that way
where the circularity is hidden by referring to 'you' and 'it' as though they are different, while at the same time demanding that they not be different. — unenlightened

No, that's not the case. You've demonstrated that logic is circular, not anything about what the motive would be for someone to constantly want to make dramatic life altering changes, or really more to the point, how the practices you talked about aren't actually supposed to be practices that lead to singular life altering experiences, but actually generally are expected to offer more gentle, gradual, iterative change. Moreover, you've failed to show how that is necessary the case with spirituality, instead of say, subjectivity.

My position is that this radical circularity applies to any analysis of the analyser, that is to say to all psychology, and to all analysis of interiority and consciousness. This is not an appeal to irrationality, to nonsense, or to despair. It is simply to say that the understanding of the psyche must proceed otherwise than the understanding of the world at large. — unenlightened

You made a big leap there. Even if I accepted that theories of truth are un-analyzable, (which I don't, because, among other things, you clearly are offering an analysis of theories of truth in your first paragraph), then how do you then get from there to "the understanding of the psyche must proceed otherwise than the understanding of the world at large". It is also demonstrably false that psychology isn't analyzable, as evidenced by the fact that there are libraries full of books analyzing it, as well as a field of endeavor called psychoanalysis, which putatively analyzes personal experience.

To summarize:

Both you and I have made an analysis of the circularity of logic, as it applies too truth. That demonstrates that circularity doesn't preclude analysis.

You claim some similar circularity when speaking about people, or their personal experiences. I don't see that circularity, so I can't intelligently respond beyond saying... It doesn't matter. Circularity doesn't preclude analysis. I would ask you to think about what you think analysis is. It's just looking at something closely and carefully, with an eye to gaining a better understanding. Like I say, the only thing that I can imagine would be immune to that would be nonsense, as nonsense, having no sensible content, is immune to a better understanding, no matter how hard you look at it.

If I'm wrong, point out what I missed, and we can clarify or dig deeper.

However, I want to consider consider a few things about our discussion, if you don't mind. Anyone who's had a discussion like this before has to come to one of a few ways to see this sort of conversation.

1) Rarely a person has their mind changed on the spot. Usually, it was about a belief they held "lightly". It is almost unheard of for someone to change their view on anything that is important to them, and to which they associate with their sense of identity, over the course of a discussion.

2) The other guy is outright wrong. They keep strawmanning your position, being willfully ignorant, changing the subject, making fallacious points.

3) Agree to disagree. This is mainly a way to let pressure off of the tension caused by the social urge to agree pitted against the urge to protect your views (especially concerning your identity) and to stand up for what seems to be true. It has the benefit of maintaining a nice social and emotional keel, but it leaves a question, and one that might be important, open. If your way of seeing it is really better, or is more true, then you are doing a disfavor to your interlocutor by not allowing them to see things in the right light.

I really feel that these describe pretty much all of the outcomes of these types of discussions. Is that your experience too?

People, including myself, find #2 really easy to slip into, and I have done so in this thread with other posters. I commend you for discussing in a way that has helped us both (it think) avoid getting there. I don't know if one of us is going to get to #1. AFAICS, that's sort of the El Dorado of rational discourse. A legend that is always searched for but never attained. Someone changing their mind mid-conversation about something they think is central to how they see themselves. So with that in mind, I have two thoughts. First, if either of us has to pull the plug and make it a #3, that's fair game, and I think we should just say so. Second, and I hope this doesn't become the case, I'll apologize in advance if I get into #2. I'm human, and even though my intent is to stay fair minded and even tempered, I have, more or less, the same psychology as everyone else, which leads the internet to be a very angry place. Lastly, I'd like to shoot for #1. One of us changes the way the other thinks about things. You down with that?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Sure. I hope my post added some information that was useful.