Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Lacewing wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are saying what it is not, not what it is.

Okay, I give up... I can't describe the non-material to you. Apparently only material forms are supposedly "real"... and the non-material is fantasy. Groovy. Go with it.

Now, now, don't get huffy! An idea is not material. Does that make it spiritual?

What about "anthropology', or any ideas? Why are they not "spiritual"?

I think the truth is that spiritual is just another fantastic idea, as real as Gandalf.

I'm not feeling huffy. Didn't you see my smiley face?

Actually, I think EVERYTHING is spiritual... but I was simply making an attempt to describe it in terms that seemed suited to your post. You said "spirituality is fantasy". So, then I would say "everything is fantasy" -or- if you think material things are "real", then spirituality is real too because surely you don't think that only the material is at work here... do you??? Doesn't it seem like the material is a manifestation of the spiritual? I can see saying that people's narrow definitions of spirituality may be fantasy (because it's surely beyond specific and limited definitions), but I don't think it's true to say that spirituality doesn't exist.

Lots of people experience it all the time in ways that go beyond fantasy. I think there's a frequency that makes it more accessible. It is not limited by our material world -- so if you're insisting that it be proven within those material terms, that's like trying to hold a cloud in your hands.

Lacewing wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Lacewing wrote: Okay, I give up... I can't describe the non-material to you. Apparently only material forms are supposedly "real"... and the non-material is fantasy. Groovy. Go with it.

Now, now, don't get huffy! An idea is not material. Does that make it spiritual?

What about "anthropology', or any ideas? Why are they not "spiritual"?

I think the truth is that spiritual is just another fantastic idea, as real as Gandalf.

I'm not feeling huffy. Didn't you see my smiley face?

Actually, I think EVERYTHING is spiritual... but I was simply making an attempt to describe it in terms that seemed suited to your post. You said "spirituality is fantasy". So, then I would say "everything is fantasy" -or- if you think material things are "real", then spirituality is real too because surely you don't think that only the material is at work here... do you??? Doesn't it seem like the material is a manifestation of the spiritual? I can see saying that people's narrow definitions of spirituality may be fantasy (because it's surely beyond specific and limited definitions), but I don't think it's true to say that spirituality doesn't exist.

Lots of people experience it all the time in ways that go beyond fantasy. I think there's a frequency that makes it more accessible. It is not limited by our material world -- so if you're insisting that it be proven within those material terms, that's like trying to hold a cloud in your hands.

Clearly only a fool would deny that some things, though they might have a material basis, can only be wholly explained in material terms. The realm of ideas might well be ultimately constituted by brain cells, and texts in books, but you do not get to understand an idea by looking at a brain cell.
I think what I object to with "spirituality" is the usual implication that we achieve some sort of spiritual state or communication by incorporeal means.
When kids enter a disco, or concert, they often claim that the 'atmosphere was electric' or some such nonsense, and believe that they are 'tapping in' to some sort of immaterial communication through the 'ether'. Similar claims are made of churches or sunsets, ad nauseam.
The fact is the 'experience' is wholly internal. Bouncers at the disco; ushers at the concert and deacons of the church having their umpteenth repeat of the performance are completely immune to the "atmosphere' or the spiritual experience. As the truth is the receiver of the 'spiritual communication' is simple responding to innate emotional reactions. These may well have been evolved through mammals for millions of years and have served to support the cohesion of the group.
It's worth noting that this tendency to think of some sort of parallel spiritual world has been, traduced and discredited by the excesses of spiritualist movement of the late Victorian/ early 20thC; though it fooled many.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:...umpteenth repeat of the performance are completely immune to the "atmosphere' or the spiritual experience. As the truth is the receiver of the 'spiritual communication' is simple responding to innate emotional reactions.

You make some valid points. I'm just saying there is more than those points. Those points do not represent the full spectrum of what can be experienced/utilized as "spirituality". And yes, concepts and claims of spirituality have been distorted and abused (and numbed) as humans can do with pretty much everything.

My best argument perhaps is to rationalize that it simply doesn't make sense that "what we see and measure and know" would be all there is. There are signs (all the time) of invisible and unfathomable rhythms and connections at work. And there are absolutely other-worldly energies interacting with our world, which have been measured in so many ways... and which I've experienced a few times myself, and they were NO fantasy!

Naturally I can't prove this to you... I can only tell you how things look from my vantage point, based on my own experiences. When you don't go looking for this stuff, and it steps right in front of you, you believe it (and respect it) even if you can't explain it.

That's my best reasoning at this moment. I've got to log off now, and go bundle up and rest and drink some tea, as it appears I'm starting to fight off a cold.

Lacewing wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:...umpteenth repeat of the performance are completely immune to the "atmosphere' or the spiritual experience. As the truth is the receiver of the 'spiritual communication' is simple responding to innate emotional reactions.

You make some valid points. I'm just saying there is more than those points. Those points do not represent the full spectrum of what can be experienced/utilized as "spirituality". And yes, concepts and claims of spirituality have been distorted and abused (and numbed) as humans can do with pretty much everything.

My best argument perhaps is to rationalize that it simply doesn't make sense that "what we see and measure and know" would be all there is. There are signs (all the time) of invisible and unfathomable rhythms and connections at work. And there are absolutely other-worldly energies interacting with our world, which have been measured in so many ways... and which I've experienced a few times myself, and they were NO fantasy!

Naturally I can't prove this to you... I can only tell you how things look from my vantage point, based on my own experiences. When you don't go looking for this stuff, and it steps right in front of you, you believe it (and respect it) even if you can't explain it.

That's my best reasoning at this moment. I've got to log off now, and go bundle up and rest and drink some tea, as it appears I'm starting to fight off a cold.

All these phenomena are compatible with our material understanding of the world, yet are not directly explicable my the materialist discourse. And I think it is delusional to want to attribute what you and I agree seem otherwise ineffable "signs of invisible and unfathomable rhythms and connections at work And the are absolutely other-worldly energies interacting with our world," to external agencies, when we know the complexities of the subconscious. One cannot understand the Mona Lisa by the analysis of the paint molecules, but we have no warrant to imply that the painting has some sort of literal "aura". People in the ordinary way respond the the body language of the smile and the reverence for things old and intact.
It's hard to argue against such vague and vacuous presentations as " signs of invisible and unfathomable rhythms and connections at work. And there are absolutely other-worldly energies interacting with our world,", but I have to reject the idea of a sign as that implies a signaler. If you were to specify I'd gladly explain why I think attributing such things to "spirit" is more than absurd. And to imply "other worldly" is not worthy of your intelligence.
I wonder if you spend too much time on the Discovery Channel?