In personal experience, having (what could be termed) a psychological breakdown brought me closer to the point of suicide. It also presented the way back into life. Similar to a sweeping arc that goes close to the fire, but then leads away from it. A breakdown can be ultimately beneficial if the psyche is then to some degree “re-built” on sturdier or more sustainable ground, so to speak metaphorically.

In retrospect, there seems to be two main decisive points for a person in emotional crisis or depression. First is the recognition that something is going on and responding to it. Denial and repression of feelings might just intensify the crisis and pain. This is analogous to Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s theory on the stages of grief. Once acceptance sets in, the process of breaking down and eventually rebuilding the identity can occur. But this is easier said than done. At many points of the process, there is vulnerability and a chance to slip into madness (for lack of a better word).

The entire affair might feel to the individual like walking a tightrope across a river in the middle of an ice storm. But when that seems like the best or maybe the only way, then the risks must borne. The whole scenario and drama may be psychological, but as a whole is not non-existent or merely imagined.

As in the case of dhikr, in anastenaria most of the sounds are meaningful phrases but it seems to me that their function is beyond the usual cognitive level. Hence my question on my first post if it counts as verbal or pre-verbal. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, I would agree in that situation the sounds seem to be “loaded” with some kind of meaning beyond the usual. So I would say it is both verbal and transverbal, or beyond words. What that means exactly is hard to define. But that probably should not come as a surprise! What the exact differences are between emotional expression and a spiritual experience is also difficult for me to define in my own life, let alone elsewhere. There might be overlap between the two. Like emotions are the color red, and spiritual nature and feeling is the color blue. In between are countless shades of violet and purple.


Thanks for sharing that.

Like recognition for Hegel? Is there a master slave aspect? Maybe not necessarily in a negative way? — frank

Sorry, not sure what you were saying here. Not too familiar with Hegel. Possibly elaborate?

Requiring generosity? — frank

Definitely. But I imagine it is possible to get more out of it than what is given. But everyone involved has to be contributing. Anyone holding out is like a knot in the garden hose, restricting the flow.


Good stuff, thanks for sharing it. The particular situation and person mirrors the universal forms, one could say.

:up: Thanks for the reply (and the attention). I see what you mean now. Boy, that’s a big subject. Probably could be a separate thread eventually. On attention and feedback, and our needs. You’ve probably heard the saying “where attention goes, energy flows”. That kind of sums it up, in general.

Picture a little baby. Even with its physical needs temporarily met (hunger, diaper, sleep) that baby is most likely ravenous for attention. Maybe quiet attention or goofy attention, etc, but attention nonetheless. Some of that might be immaturity, but I think a good deal of it is human nature. Maybe we need less as adults, but it is safe to assume that there is a baseline need for response and feedback. Both verbal and physical.

And this is not necessarily insecurity and neediness. One sees that animals, plants, and even inanimate things feed off of attention. The floor needs sweeping and the clutter benefits from sorting. Attention being the flow of energy, as in the practice of feng shui. (I’m still working on that clutter thing! Starting with the mental clutter :smile: )

To play one’s part in the conversation, in the back-and-forth of life is almost a musical skill. Timing and rhythm, melody and harmony, verse and chorus. The most enjoyable conversations are like a jazz performance, with both soloing and group effort. When the vibration is high, everyone feels good. Even while sitting there quietly.

Maybe... not sure. Could you please expand on that a little?

Dang, that’s a good one. Just let it go. If it’s there and real, it’s not going anywhere. Less is more.
But I’ve experienced how one can feel drowned out by the noise, lost in the crowd. So you amp it up, try to get louder and brighter. Who can be “on” all the time without feeling drained? Another verse says to dim your brightness, and to wear your gold and jewels under common clothing.

Perusing the ancient Greek school of Pyrrhonism, one comes across the concept of Epoché, the suspension of judgement. This being done in order to ideally achieve a state of freedom from worry and anxiety, which the Greeks called ataraxia.

I mention it here to draw some comparison to the point of the OP. Or a possible strategy towards approaching the big questions of metaphysics that avoids both presumption and dogma on one hand, and apathy and a lack of curiosity on the other.

The metaphysical questions Buddha refused to answer might also be relevant here.

When advocating the reduction or removal of some thing or idea, it seems useful to be able to provide a substitute to occupy the space held by that which was to be replaced. For example, one can say to avoid eating such and such unhealthy foods. But since we have to eat something, providing an acceptable substitute helps immensely. And similarly with ideas and beliefs, the empty space will be filled with something, whether it is beneficial to the person or not.

Why is the world so messy? Because nature abhors a vacuum. :grin:

:up: Thanks for the background information on it! Very interesting, gotta look up more. Sad to think that such a seemingly uplifting thing might be viewed as political or even dangerous by some. Especially when people seem to need something uplifting to bring them together. Troubled times we live in.

Holy #&@%! Wow. That Sufi Zikr video... I’d seen the Dervishes before, but not that kind of circlar group dance. Thanks enormously for sharing that. Have you participated in something like that? I don’t know what in the world that was; but that is the kind of thing I was referring to, taken to a group level. It’s like watching a human roller coaster. One cannot imagine feeling isolated or depressed after participating in (or even watching) such a ritual. Has to be quite a physical workout as well. I’m going to look for the nearest group of Sufis. :blush:

So what (I hear no one asking :snicker: ) is the instrumental counterpart to the healing and therapeutic groans and moans mentioned above? Drones, of course! There is a parallel and complementary nature to both.

Great idea! Kind of a thread nursery or nest until they are ready to fly off on their own. Like a good little crow, owl, or piglet.

:up: Nice! Seems about right to me. But then, I have been eating mushrooms i picked in the backyard. :starstruck:
In general, I find that if half of me says something is too much and the other half says it is not enough, then it’s probably just about right.

Scenario number one:

Child in back seat of minivan: Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

Parent: Almost! Are you excited?
——
Scenario number two:

Child in back seat: Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

Parent: No. Not really. We are far away. In fact, where we are going is a shallow substitute for what you really want. Something I cannot give you, even if I knew what on Earth it was in the first place. Sorry... I really am very sorry... to have to tell you this. You have no idea how much.
——

And I write that without judgment of the parent in either scenario. For I am both of them, and the child too. The question that pops into my mind is whether this predicament is general/existential or particular/cultural. In other words, were we born in a dead-end situation, or have we worked ourselves into a corner?

The public, amateur, "God is" argument is, has been, and sadly will be, characterized with a large degree of disrespect from both sides. From zealot evangelists on one side - claiming damnation on the non- believer - to zealots on the other side claiming it takes a feebleness of mind to believe in a fairy tale.

There are fair arguments for "God is" and "God is not" - and as such neither camp as of right now hold a superior position - so both camps deserve respect. — Rank Amateur

Good points. Competition is made to be everything. (No surprise in our current culture, I suppose). There must be a winning side, a dominant argument, a conquering genius superhero. In actuality, both spiritual belief and scientific inquiry are rather open-ended processes. Both are agreeable to new inspiration or information, as the case may be.

But when domination is the mission, and the marketers take over, the systems have to be sealed tight and streamlined. They are made military-grade. And completely self-sufficient, with answers for everything. One-stop shopping, no need to search elsewhere for this is your home. Now grab a sword of truth and defend thy home!

But it must thankfully said, I rarely see the extreme position of supposed absolute certainty (argued against in this thread) held by anyone on this forum. Maybe an active mind resists prepackaged insta-beliefs systems delivered to your door. So this may all be preaching to the choir. If so, good for you. :up:

I will save my intolerance for the agnostic !! — Rank Amateur

:grin: Oh no, not the ignostic too?! But I’ve found a comfy spot on the fence to watch the parade!

I think a core issue here is reflected in the ancient question of relative truth vs absolute truth. Confer the Two Truths Doctrine. We as humans can ask any question, discern many possible answers, and hold any belief. But our feet are always planted in the relative realm, even when pondering the nature of the Absolute. That does not diminish or discourage the truths we can observe or communicate. However, it does frame them in time and space, and in human context.

When ideas are framed as ideas, beliefs presented as beliefs, and theories given as theories; then one simply chooses to play along or not. No foul or illegal move has been committed. The danger of assuming an Absolute vantage point is not that that is gives one God’s knowledge, but that one would lead one to think that they have it.

Not attacking religion here, for this criteria includes atheism as well; specifically so-called explicit strong atheism. To claim that God or spirit cannot exist because it has not been proven, or may indeed be unprovable, is most unscientific for it shuts the door on any possible evidence. And it assumes it has an absolute vantage point. The zeal to save the world from irrational religious beliefs may be admirable. But if the “ground rules” for relative and absolute truths exist, they apply to all parties and any position... (including the ones expressed in this post).

As an aside, for what it is worth... The philosophical discussion of meaning vs no meaning (to put it one of many possible ways) reminds one of the clash of belief systems in the thought-provoking “I :heart: Huckabees” movie.

Thanks for your thoughtful and sincere messages. Examples of what is interesting and helpful about this forum, IMHO. :smile:

Sometimes I get this. We make our enemies by making them enemies. On the other hand, isn't it necessary to fight back at some point? — T Clark

Thems fightin’ words! En guardè! :nerd: But seriously, I would agree that there is a time to fight. Personally, I admire the instincts of animals, who mostly run away if possible, before considering fighting. Barking or growling is also an option. I have almost stepped on skunks in the dark several times, and they ran off without even spraying me. (Thank goodness)

I'm ambivalent about the political verses. Telling someone how to govern seems a little inconsistent. Why would a person who follows the Tao want to rule a country? — T Clark

Maybe mentally replace “governing a country” with “managing your business”? (BTW, when quoting me here it looks like I am the author of the quotes. I wish!)

Governing a large country
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.

Center your country in the Tao
and evil will have no power.
Not that it isn't there,
but you'll be able to step out of its way.

Give evil nothing to oppose
and it will disappear by itself.

- chapter 60. Translated by Stephen Mitchell.

Thanks for the reply. Agree completely.

I may have been going out on a limb requiring some kind of logic in spiritual talk. Guess we have to trust our instincts. Like plants have a geotropism and heliotropism, humans seem to have a deotropism. A reaching toward the divine, a Creator, the supernatural, or the Ideal realm; whatever beliefs the person may have. It could manifest as a desire to be a creator, an artist. If that relates to a growing towards the sun, we also have a desire for grounding, for roots. This is easily dismissed as boring or even holding us down. But it may keep us from being misled.

It is just that people (including me) seem hungry for both the spiritual and for answers. So it is almost like there is a sellers market for hucksters of any faith (or newly minted system) who can can dazzle, persuade, entertain, and provide something that fills the hole in the soul.

:up: Ok, thanks for the clarification. That seems a most reasonable approach, IMHO.

There is an apparent prejudiced in the above that beliefs held by faith to be true, have less value than beliefs held by reason. I am not sure why that is in any way true. The real tension comes when faith is in conflict with fact or reason. It which case it loses all value. — Rank Amateur

I might know what you are saying here. But could you expand on it somewhat when you can? Thanks.

For now, I will say for that reason can potentially help faith and belief, especially when the beliefs exit the mouth and enter the world. As I noted in the OP, God may be beyond our reasoning, but we are not. Not completely, anyway. Reason is like gravity in some ways, and reason is in harmony with physics. One can seek a religion in harmony with the universe, with matter and energy. Many have sought such a thing, and without falling into scientism either. (If that at all addresses your message! :smile: )

It's a reflex to suggest that nonsense can transmute into sense - it cannot, by itself. Where there is realization or epiphany in the presence of nonsense, there is always some other ingredient, some catalyst. To my way of thinking it is the catalyst that's worth capturing and making explicit.

Charity in the face of nonsense is, well, charitable. Beyond that, it's a mistake. Nonsense always comes with price tag - payment not optional. — tim wood

Yes, exactly. Perhaps in other words... one can have many model cars and toy vehicles. As long as one doesn’t try to drive them on the freeway, it is fine for all.

So the point is that when listening to God-mongers keep your hand on your wallet, your eye on your watch, your feet pointed toward the exit, and at least part of your mind actively monitoring your well-being. — tim wood

:up: Haha! Well said, suitable for framing. (BTW, I’m also keeping tabs on the God-monger who has much power over me- the one in my mind).

once one 'get's it right' then it is right. Everything is right. All is right. Things are alright. Success shines forth and justifies life. When you are consumed in your passion, it is enough. — matt

Yes. Then everything changes, as it often does. A new day dawns. One may or not remember previous thoughts or feel former passions. And it starts over again, building on foundation of many yesterdays, trying to find the thread.

When anyone talks about God in any sense at all, I look to see if they have defined or qualified "God" in any way at all. Usually not. — tim wood

Not sure if you are saying that’s a good thing, less than a good thing, or perhaps neither? If you wish to clarify...

As I wrote in the link to the Ignostic post above and in the reply to Janus, I am hesitant and skeptical of the human inclination (temptation?) to attempt to define the divine. To slice and dice, label and categorize, and thus manipulate and dominate. Humanity has arguably grabbed the earth and its natural resources, which has its upside and downside. The Creator would appear safe from our labeling and grasping, no matter how tall the Tower of Babel grows to. I am all for letting the central mystery of the universe be experienced, but not necessarily explained. (Not meaning to be at all anti-intellectual).

Some very smart people over at least 2300 years have tried to fathom the concept, and with some approach to unanimity they have concluded that God is unknowable. — tim wood

Ok, sure. That may indeed be. Personally, I would neither say that God is unknowable, nor would I say that God is knowable. Basically, any statement of others or mine that began “God is... ” is at best a provisional theory, at worst an bold assumption. Not necessarily a bad thing though. Leaps of faith are one’s soul’s choice. Leaps or lapses of logic are better not ignored. I would imagine that possibly makes for an even stronger faith, even though it is itself beyond mere rationality.

I think expressing any opinion about God counts as theology; although it obviously doesn't have to be good theology.... — Janus

:up: Ok, that is fair enough as a broad definition. I would not disagree with it. I think I’m advocating a healthy skepticism. More about ourselves, our motives, our words. As is well-known, the list of psychological defense mechanisms is long. Projection, denial, compensation, dissociation, repression, rationalization. Even when greed, fame, and power are not at stake, the struggle for awareness of one’s psychological wants and needs is never-ending.

Or more personally, I’ve experienced each of those defense mechanisms, and more. To counterbalance, I am almost mercilessly skeptical of my own thoughts. About either the simplest idea or the loftiest insight (which was most likely borrowed from somewhere else), the calmer and deeper part says “maybe... maybe... , or perhaps not. Wait a while. Plant those seeds and see what grows from them”.

Out on a off-topic limb here perhaps. But these are some of the background ideas of the OP, for what it’s worth.

Fair question! Thanks for your reply. Godsplaining is hardly a word, let alone a thing in and of itself. It is just a label for a concept. The concept I have been chewing on for years. The label I stumbled across during a Google search today. If they go together like oil and water, perhaps it is useful for a salad dressing? :yum:

A while ago, I started a thread about ignosticism. The subject of this thread is a bit different, but with some overlap I think. As long as one keeps in mind that in this thread, I’m NOT referring to God’s existence or even one’s spiritual beliefs, but maybe the way God is talked about. Either logically or not, honestly or not, etc.

You can read the original post here. Hope that might shed some light on my thinking at least.

Thanks again!

Are you proposing that its general usefulness or otherwise could somehow be logically or empirically established? — Janus

No, sorry if that was the impression or message you got. That was not the intent.

Please see my reply above to T Clark. All due respect to a person’s beliefs. That is really not the point I was trying awkwardly to make.

In the OP, I admitted that the term was perhaps nauseating and trendy, although not as popular as its relative “mansplaining”. These are not words I use in conversation. Maybe I was trying to be current and popular. The threads I start usually get about four responses and drop to the bottom. :yawn:

But as goofy as the term is, who in the world would possibly seriously confuse it with theology in part, or as a whole? In fact, the goofiness would separate it from more serious studies, I would wager. If I had meant “theology”, I would have specifically used that word. Cheers.

I live in Massachusetts. People don't talk much about God in a casual way here. I've spent time in Alabama, where they do. They talk about God the way we, and they, talk about the weather, politics, or sports. It's a constantly present factor in their day to day lives and those they know. What you call Godsplaining is just the way they live. — T Clark

:up: That is an excellent comparison drawn from your personal life. Thanks. The way you describe how the people in Alabama are would not bother me, though. (Not that they should care one way or another!) Someone honestly sharing what they hold dear is not a problem. Maybe it’s the so-called experts, or preachers, or those that have a financial stake in it that are the hardest to believe or listen to. Like when you feel like your dealing with a shady used car salesperson, someone with a rehearsed slick spiel, a shell game. Or the Wizard of Oz: pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Also, how many people on the forum speak about their beliefs "without a shred of modesty, doubt, or hesitancy?" To a certain extent, singling out religion probably reflects what you see as important and unimportant. — T Clark

I’m glad you mentioned that, for it may not have been worded properly. I do not mean to single out religion. Or belief. Maybe it is just how we talk about God. I would imagine that there are real experts when it comes to “God”. But I would probably trust someone who had religious experiences, rather than a PhD in whatever, or have a TV show. For what is worth, I’d say a person’s core beliefs are foundational to who they are. And they hold the key to their future. If those core beliefs are religious, or spiritual, or artistic, or scientific, or whatever, makes little difference to me. Whatever works for them. It makes a huge difference to them, as it should.

As bc implies, the prior assumption of a single capitalizable (g)od is quite a leap. I love to talk about gods but God is a rather more specific phenomenon. — mcdoodle

Good point, indeed. Too much strife over that one letter. It reminds me of a quote from (the recently deceased) Daniel Quinn:


And good to see you back again, mcdoodle! :smile:

If one believes the gods are real, they are always (and of necessity) inscrutable. So... explanations are in order. — Bitter Crank

Well, that is true. It is the central mystery of life and the source of all. So curiousity is not surprising, it is natural. And not just natural, but possibly inspiring. I just wonder how to balance the explanations and the mystery. The wonder and the words spoken about its meaning. Having the golden goose and not being tempted to open it up to find even more treasure.

It reminds me of that old joke about the comedian’s wife or lover: “She walks on the ground I worship”.
Maybe it’s relative where the hallowed ground is.

I asked God about this, and He said it pisses Him off too. — unenlightened

Oh sure! Go ahead and humble-brag some more. Just because you had facetime with the Creator of the entire universe. The same one that won’t return any of my phone calls. So rub it in! :rofl:

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, everyone. Will respond when I get a chance. It is soooo difficult trying to type out a post while driving in rush hour traffic. Multi-tasking, hurrah!

(sorry... bad joke. It’s actually after rush hour. :halo: )

I believe the most important part in any God discussion is to identify if the belief, or truth claim is based on fact, reason, or faith. Arguments based on fact on God are not really relevant. In one says God is, is fact, it is not really worth a continued discussion. And I find the biggest disconnects when one person is making a faith based argument and getting an argument of reason back. Important that both parties are "Godspeaking" from the same basis. — Rank Amateur

Thanks for the reply! Yes, it seems most helpful if both parties are clear with each other where they are coming from. I have no problem in general with scriptural analysis and commentary of any faith. In general, there are many examples of which that are well-researched. I may find one more convincing or relevant than another. The OP isn’t making a case against commentary. (Not that you are saying such! Just thought I’d throw that in there. :smile: )

You may be familiar with the theoretical language E-Prime. In a nutshell and as I understand it, its main tenet proposes not using the verb “to be”. This is in order to avoid adopting an omniscient point of view, and to avoid discrepancies and inaccuracies. Even about small things. So instead of saying “grass is green”, one could say “at the time, the grass appeared green”. So if it might be helpful to do so concerning commonplace things, would it not be even more critical when talking about the Creator? Every qualifier and modifier helps, like saying “in my opinion” or “perhaps” or “God seems like.. “. It softens the blow, and pulls the punch, so to speak. It may come across as equivocation or wishy-washy. But I feel the larger error and bigger danger is someone talking about the Creator like said divinity is a bug under a microscope, and completely known by the speaker. Who is also kind enough to share this knowledge with those not so blessed.

Also, I’d like to add that parenthetically that I don’t necessarily believe silence is always better on the topic of God. Not advocating some religious version of Wittgenstein’s “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” I think one would sooner get all kids to keep their hands out of the cookie jar, than getting people to stop having opinions about God. :grin: No problem there really.

Well, thanks to this thread I listened to the Tao te Ching -- it was my first exposure to it. There was a reasonably decent reading on youtube, and the speaker also gives a preface.

I never really had the inclination before and I don't know why. I really enjoyed it. — Moliere

Wow, that’s great to hear! :smile: :hearts: Whenever I mention the TTC here or elsewhere, I always hope it will make someone curious about it, or remind them if they haven’t read it in a while. All while trying to avoid annoying the heck out of people by knocking on their door and handing out pamphlets about the Tao. :blush:

I seem to have the opposite problem. I use big words that are made up to try to impress co-workers. Words like “retransferrulence” and “unremidullant” can have varied uses, depending on the situation. Lotsa fun. Nevertheless, they still have to dumb it down considerably when talking to me, if any work is to be done. Otherwise, we end up standing there cromulantly scratching our heads. :nerd:

:up: Ha! The dry humor flew right by me unnoticed. Must be the humidity!
Is not problem. Now us drink vodka! (an example of wet humor). :lol:

Anyway, about the thread topic... how about those that sold their soul... for rock and roll?

It was just a heads up, in case of deletion of your post, which as mentioned happened to me. Not a judgment of any kind, dear sir. Tried to make that clear; apologies if it failed. Thanks nevertheless.

That is a wonderfully deep Simpsons episode, maybe my all-time fav. (Also, just a little notice that one of our esteemed Mods (peace be upon them), perhaps has a quick finger on the delete button for posts with only supposedly irrelevant videos in serious threads. At least it happened to me once. No biggie, just for your infotainment. :razz: )