The spiritual side of human existence (non-religious)

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think there is a spiritual side to human existence that does not depend on mysticism. I suspect it is instead part of the experience of consciousness, and wish to explore that here.


Definitions

Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. Some philosophers divide consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is experience itself, and access consciousness, which is the processing of the things in experience (Block 2004). Phenomenal consciousness is the state of being conscious, such as when we say "I am conscious" and access consciousness is being conscious of something, such as when we say "I am conscious of these words". (Wiki)

Self-awareness is the understanding that one exists. Furthermore, it includes the concept that one exists as an individual, separate from other people, with private thoughts. It may also include the understanding that other people are similarly self-aware. (Wiki)

Self-consciousness is credited with the development of identity (see the self). In an epistemological sense, self-consciousness is a personal understanding of the very core of one's own identity. It is during periods of self-consciousness that people come the closest to knowing themselves objectively. (Wiki)


Commentary

"There is something beyond the search for pleasure, or avoiding pain. It is consciousness itself. Consciousness – that in you that is aware of your experience – is not the same as that experience, and does not feel like 'I.' The thing that is aware of your experience transcends its content. It feels like we are experiencing something, but are not identical to that experience."

(Notes from a section of a speech by Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith," in which he discusses meditation, and how Eastern contemplative traditions are empirical about what it is possible to learn by paying attention to the flow of experience. "We need a contemplative science unconstrained by religious dogma," he concludes.)


Discussion

What a remarkable, wonderful and precious thing that these odd blobs of protoplasm on this quirky little planet acquired this amazing capacity to experience consciousness, self-consciousness and self-awareness as described above! If not unique in the universe it is without question exceedingly rare (see "Drake's equation.") We humans are an amazing amalgam of these things, plus our cognitive power and our emotional capacity. I think the spiritual side of human existence is to be found in this amalgam, but I am not a "deep thinker," and do not have the ability to untangle and explain it. Lacking this ability, I often substitute analogies and parables for deep thoughts. Here is one:

Blue: Light with a wavelength range of about 420–490 nanometers.
Blue: I recall looking up at the blue sky from my mother's gravesite on the day of her funeral, and feeling that the world had become a lonelier place.
Blue: I recall the wave of affection that overcame me when my lover arrived at ski lodge fireplace wearing that lovely blue sweater.
Blue: My heart almost stopped when my newborn baby opened her eyes for the first time and I beheld pale blue.
Blue: The water must be really deep here – look how blue it is.
Blue: "Go Blue!" (A sports team cheer.)
Blue: I am thinking about myself thinking about "blue."

All those thoughts, feelings and associations bubble up at the word "blue," all of which are part of the amazing human amalgam. This example is a little thing, but perhaps reveals a small corner of what I think of as the spiritual side of human existence.


From Wiki:
Due to its broad scope and personal nature, however, spirituality can perhaps be better understood by highlighting key concepts that arise when people are asked to describe what spirituality means to them. Research by Martsolf and Mickley (1998) highlighted the following areas as worthy of consideration:
Meaning – significance of life; making sense of situations; deriving purpose.
Values – beliefs, standards and ethics that are cherished.
Transcendence – experience, awareness, and appreciation of a "transcendent dimension" to life beyond self.
Connecting – increased awareness of a connection with self, others, God/Spirit/Divine, and nature.
Becoming – an unfolding of life that demands reflection and experience; includes a sense of who one is and how one knows.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I have difficulty with this kind of dichtotomy between materialism and spirituality, between rationalism and mysticism. To me, reason has a place, and that place is very important. So, too, does the mystical, empirical understanding that a person has, which he can't prove or demonstrate to someone else. The other person can't be expected to believe in it, until or unless he or she experiences it himself or herself. All the same, one should not write someone off as a nutcase for having those experiences. Those are personal, mystical experiences.

I won't deny that my religious path affects my views on this. It does. I am a pagan. I believe that the Cosmos or Nature speaks to us through mystical gnosis, through reason, and through our primal instincts as mammals. All of these are valid. One shouldn't weigh any but reason in a court of law, for instance, but that's simply because the stakes are so high that only verifiable evidence can be safely admitted. I believe in the Gods. That can not be divorced from my view of spirituality, cosmology, reason, instincts, etc.

As for faith, I don't expect others to share mine, any more than they should expect me to share theirs. It's a personal choice, and I am very much a rugged individualist (without apologies). I don't think that there is a saving faith any more than there is a damning one. Salvation and damnation aren't even issues or factors to me. Faith is personal and esoteric. I accept that about it.

To me, simply put, we are separate and the same. We are part of one Cosmos, all of which is divine, but we are distinct physical manifestations or aspects of that Cosmos. Both matter and spirit (or energy, as I think of it) co-exist. They are not inimical. We are distinct, yet we are one. That is the paradox of the Universe. There is no dualistic battle of matter vs. spirit. One is not good and the other evil. That is an attempt to define the impersonal in personal and moral terms. Matter and spirit are simply different forms of the same thing, different states, like liquid, gas, and solid.

So, there it is. That is my basic metaphysical view. Feel free to differ with it. I understand if you don't agree, but to me it is clear as crystal. Science has its role. Reason has its role. So does instinct. So does mystical union with the Cosmos.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Mis- and Sev -

I have removed the potentially contentious definition of mysticism from my original post in the hope of focusing the discussion on non-mystical spiritual issues. Perhaps that is impossible. I'm considering opening another thread with that contentious definition, where objectivists, subjectivists, atheists and believers can flame away to their hearts' content. (Not that I would ever engage in such activity, of course. )

 

[cantdog]

Lovely to see you on the board again, mismused.

 

[rgraham666]

You know how I feel about pure rationalism.

From my point of view pure spirituality is the same thing.

We need both, in balance, to succeed. As a society and as individuals.

 

[cantdog]

I am wary of definitions of the spiritual, as well. Definitions are of use for logic, but logic should butt out. Spiritual life is understood empirically, and not in rational terms.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Selena_Kitt]

aww, Roxy, I was interested in your differentiation between mysticism and spiritualism... no need to take it out just cuz it's "contentious"... whatever that means...

All those thoughts, feelings and associations bubble up at the word "blue," all of which are part of the amazing human amalgam. This example is a little thing, but perhaps reveals a small corner of what I think of as the spiritual side of human existence.

so... spirituality is kind of like a prism... shine the light through, and get all these different offshoots that go in different directions... yet they come from the same source?

or spirit is made up of all those aspects of ourselves that we categorize as different/separate?

How do you feel about the idea of oneness in Sev's post, I wonder?

I agree with cantdog, that at a certain point, logic no longer dictates when we're talking about spirit. It can't contain spirit within its boundaries, nor can it "explain" it. Logic gets frustrated and... impatient... with spirit

What a remarkable, wonderful and precious thing that these odd blobs of protoplasm on this quirky little planet acquired this amazing capacity to experience consciousness, self-consciousness and self-awareness as described above!

but you know, we were all put here by the flying spaghetti monster, to do his bidding...

Sorry, couldn't resist... my new path toward enlightenment and all...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

aww, Roxy, I was interested in your differentiation between mysticism and spiritualism... no need to take it out just cuz it's "contentious"... whatever that means...



so... spirituality is kind of like a prism... shine the light through, and get all these different offshoots that go in different directions... yet they come from the same source?

or spirit is made up of all those aspects of ourselves that we categorize as different/separate?

How do you feel about the idea of oneness in Sev's post, I wonder?

I agree with cantdog, that at a certain point, logic no longer dictates when we're talking about spirit. It can't contain spirit within its boundaries, nor can it "explain" it. Logic gets frustrated and... impatient... with spirit



but you know, we were all put here by the flying spaghetti monster, to do his bidding...

Sorry, couldn't resist... my new path toward enlightenment and all...

Hi Selena - nice legs.

I am withholding any remarks on the mysticism side, because I haven't given up hope of avoiding that aspect in this discussion, although it may be impossible. I made a mistake inserting that contentious definition (one likely to start arguments) into original version of the first post.

Your comment on my "blue" thing shows the dangers and limitations of analogies - You add a simile to an analogy, and before long the discussion becomes so abstract that is is imcomprehensible. I think I was just trying to give an example of the kind of personal experience that the "amazing amalgam" produces.


Re. Spaghetti monsters - I have the text for a new thread all ready to go: "Mysticism (Worse than political – contentious metaphysical, epistemological thread.)" I hesitate to post it because it will almost certainly become a major flame war, and things are already testy in several precincts around here. I might save it for a more boring period.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

contentious definition (one likely to start arguments)

*snort*
you are so literal

I KNOW what contentious ACTUALLY means...

Your comment on my "blue" thing shows the dangers and limitations of analogies - You add a simile to an analogy, and before long the discussion becomes so abstract that is is imcomprehensible. I think I was just trying to give an example of the kind of personal experience that the "amazing amalgam" produces.

I'm sure S&D (or someone equally as worthy and willing to wade in!) will stop by and give you a run for your money in terms of rational and logical discussion of the spiritual... I'd rather experience it than talk about it any day... that's what I want to hear... what is YOUR experience of the divine?

nice legs

thank you

 

[cloudy]

I am wary of definitions of the spiritual, as well. Definitions are of use for logic, but logic should butt out. Spiritual life is understood empirically, and not in rational terms.

exactly.

Once again, cant, you manage to put into words what I was unable to.

 

[cantdog]

You know how I feel about pure rationalism.

From my point of view pure spirituality is the same thing.

We need both, in balance, to succeed. As a society and as individuals.

Okay, so "butt out" was overstated. Rob's always got the right end of the stick as regards balance.

If you can rise above the mixed metaphor...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm sure S&D (or someone equally as worthy and willing to wade in!) will stop by and give you a run for your money in terms of rational and logical discussion of the spiritual... I'd rather experience it than talk about it any day... that's what I want to hear... what is YOUR experience of the divine?

Maybe this is unrealistic of me, but I had the notion that this discussion need not be contentious*; that for the most part we could set aside a debate about the mystical and just discuss the thing that I wrote about. I considered that perhaps those who also believe in mystical things can separate that from the things I described. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think that has been determined yet.

*Of course you know that - my duh! (It did seem odd )

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Maybe this is unrealistic of me, but I had the notion that this discussion need not be contentious*; that for the most part we could set aside a debate about the mystical and just discuss the thing that I wrote about. I considered that perhaps those who also believe in mystical things can separate that from the things I described. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think that has been determined yet.

*Of course you know that - my duh! (It did seem odd )

contention, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder...

where are you coming from, Roxanne? Are you coming from a place of discovery, curiosity? Are you coming from a place of wanting to prove a point (i.e. debate)? It makes a difference in how people respond...

if, as you say:

I think there is a spiritual side to human existence that does not depend on mysticism. I suspect it is instead part of the experience of consciousness, and wish to explore that here.

then we can and should share our experience(s) of consciousness... ? I think your differentiation is important, between your definition of mysticism (I believe in flying spaghetti monsters) and spiritualism (I feel a connection with something greater than myself.) Mysticism in your view seems to literalize the latter. How can we define the undefineable? That is why, when I speak of "God"... I use quotes. Call it what you will...

My most profound spiritual experiences have been through my body. Sex is one. Childbirth is another. Both have transported me to the place where "I" was no longer "I," where the boundaries became not just fluid, but non-existent. I have rarely, if ever, found the presence of spirit in a church... but there have been spiritual teachings from almost every world religion that have moved me.

 

[cantdog]

I does appeam that the mystical is obtruding in nearly every discussion, Roxanne. Maybe you should shrug and see what you might have elicited. It may be interesting in itself.

But to leave out the mystical to the extent I can? I think a person's 'ethical journey' through life belongs to the spiritual.

Maybe I should explain (if not define ) what I mean. I have referred to the phenomenon before, in discussions with you. I see a distinct stepwise climbing development in a person's morality, if they are developing the spiritual. It is not divorced from other aspects of maturity, even the reasoning faculties. Because, nothing is divirced from anything else in the human.

It goes like so, described in isolation: One is egocentric, then gradually develops an attachment to some group beyond the self. One is then, I guess, "group"-centric, be it nationalist, ethnocentric, identifying with a religious group, or whatever it may be.
Then one gradually discerns both the features the group has in common with the Enemy (or the Other, in some circles) and also the features members of the Enemy seem to share with the good guys. Passing through an existential phase, one emerges with an attachment to humans as a whole. The yellow man is no less human and no less worthy than oneself, so that one can no longer support killing the "gooks." The brown man is the same, his struggles are like one's own, so one can no longer support arming the border to shoot all the "wetbacks." One is then anthropocentric, and other, still more inclusive, stages await.

Not everyone even rises above the egocentric, and certainly, for many, nationalism or racism is as high a morality as they will ever attain in their lifetimes. But the stepwise climb, the spiritual ladder, is there to be ascended, nevertheless.

At each stage, the morality of the person undergoes a complete overhaul, perceived rightly as a step upward, into a higher moral realm. This ladder is integrated with other, parallel, ladders, which the maturing being also ascends.

But i see this one as a spiritual journey.

 

[AchtungNight]

Can't comment much on this because so many other great thinkers are commenting. I will say, though, that I too am a spiritual person. When it comes to religion, I am a serious freethinker, yet at the same time I find I believe in God and all His wonders because I was raised Christian. I just tend to concentrate more on the philosophical and spiritual aspects of my religion than the myths and dogma that seems to be there to keep me from enjoying life.

 

[cantdog]

I dunno, Achtung. I dig myths. They are really not religious, most of them, but rather methods of transmitting wisdom.

Many times characters in myths have sought immortality. Gilgamesh retrieved the plant from the ocean floor of the Underworld, but it was stolen from his limp hand as he rested on the beach. The snake got to shed his skin, but Gilgamesh, alas, got nothing. A lot of such tales find the hero stmied in this quest, and the wisdom transmitted is, you can't have it. Immortality sounds good, but you just can't have it. In other nyths, the hero actually achieves it, but it backfires. The idea being you don't want this. It sounds like a great thing, but it would fuck everything up. The Invisible man stories have the same moral about a different idea. Myths are usually about some point of wisdom which is cast in the form to make it memorable.

I don't see that most of them are concerned with spiritual things, so much.

Dogmas, though, always strike me as assholes using their priestly authority to make up rules. Pure abuse of authority. Hardly spiritual, either, consequently; any tin plated godlet can make up rules, and will really get going on it if the rules do not apply to him, personally.

 

[Pure]

'spirituality' is a slippery concept. i'm not sure it is to be identified with consciousness [csns], though csns is a precondition. animals have csns and chimps have some self consciousness.

in German, the term 'Geist' means Spirit and has broad linkages with intellect, creativity, and so on.

defining 'spirituality' solely in terms of the goals of Zen meditation seems too narrow.

but defining an empirical 'mysticism' or 'spirituality' has been a goal of Quakers, yogis, and Zen masters. the author of the defs is deeply suspicious of the transcendant or the religious.

 

[AchtungNight]

Cantdog: I like the wisdom in myths too. I just think most of them are overembellished with imaginary supernatural detail (not that that's a bad thing, it's just strange).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Pure: 'spirituality' is a slippery concept. i'm not sure it is to be identified with consciousness [csns], though csns is a precondition. animals have csns and chimps have some self consciousness.

Mismused, responding to the definitions of Consciousness, Self-awareness, and Self-consciousness:

(Mismused, responding to the definitions of Consciousness, Self-awareness, and Self-consciousness)

(M)ight they not all be lumped into one thing?

How about awareness alone, as suggested by one psychologist. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I'm also reminded about this from a psychiatrist:

"The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice"

This noticing is, of course, awareness. The theory goes that we are more aware of some things than of others. For instance, what we do become greatly aware of soon goes to "ground," or think of possibly habit, what we no longer pay attention to, but are vaguely aware of to some degree. This "degree" of awareness that we have is said to be what we call the sub conscious, or its beginnings. Okay, that's that for now on this.

One reason I posted definitions of all three - Consciousness, Self-awareness, and Self-consciousness - was to distinguish between human and animal consciousness.* Probably someone will contend that the difference is only one of degree. I disagree, and think humans are exceptional, and a thing apart (except for one particular horse). I do not have the tools to flesh that out though, so if there is any dispute I hope someone else will weigh in.


* To illustrate one piece of this, here is a quote from a very smart Objectivist discussing ethical issues: "There may some free will among higher forms of animal consciousness-- as we see in a dog hesitating between two courses-- but the set of standards that will inform those characteristically concrete choices seems not open to them to revise."

 

[gauchecritic]

There is something beyond the search for pleasure, or avoiding pain. It is consciousness itself. Consciousness – that in you that is aware of your experience – is not the same as that experience, and does not feel like 'I.' The thing that is aware of your experience transcends its content. It feels like we are experiencing something, but are not identical to that experience."

It may be out of context but I see this as the crux. (context/crux same Latin derivation surely. Where are you Ogg when I can't be arsed to research?)

This paragraph says: there is something about humanity that is not affected by experience.

So where is growth? Where lies wisdom? Who could ever be 'compleat'?

The implication is that whatever you do, good or evil (like evil exists as a thing), worthy or selfish, has no bearing whatsoever on your core 'person'.

I see this quite differently. A person is the sum of their experience, which is why, even as identical twins are born, no two people are the same.
Identical twins differ as soon as they are born, one is there the other isn't. Then they are both there. etc, etc.
By experience alone, ignoring differences in parental chemical contributions in utero, they are identical in the womb. exactly the same experiences: Mother's heartbeat, muffled world outside and someone else in there with them. But as soon as one is born, they become different. One is 'puking and mewling' the other is suddenly alone.

It seems to me that what is suggested is the 'two soul theory'. (Japanese? Chinese?) So now you are discussing existentialism: Me and everything else.

I'd say that it's probably impossible to experience something, anything and remain the same, Even as you experience it you are becoming a different person. Which is substantially, the Heisenberg Principle: What you observe, you affect and conversely: what you observe affects you.

So take my adopted 'religion'. (Yes I'm a Star Wars freak but without the midiclorians) There is a force (God?) generated by all living things that surrounds us and penetrates us.

That force (Gaia? I'm an 'I robot'icist too) lives to experience. Its essential 'meaning' is experience. It recreates itelf every day, it also dies every day, so that every tiniest fraction of it struggles towards experiencing every possible combination that is available. The Galileoes and the Harijans (untouchables), the Ghandies and the Hitlers, the paedeophiles and the innocents.

You are one with the universe. And every single thing in that universe. You are as much to blame for September 11 as you are for Mother Teresa.

You are that hijacker and you are that nun.

 

[cantdog]

That's right, I think. Where is the end of your ladder? So inclusive that you have no need of a center any longer. But by then you are already in the mystic. and everyone else's ladder goes there, too. And it isn't even a place.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It may be out of context but I see this as the crux. (context/crux same Latin derivation surely. Where are you Ogg when I can't be arsed to research?)

This paragraph says: there is something about humanity that is not affected by experience.

So where is growth? Where lies wisdom? Who could ever be 'compleat'?

The implication is that whatever you do, good or evil (like evil exists as a thing), worthy or selfish, has no bearing whatsoever on your core 'person'.

I see this quite differently. A person is the sum of their experience, which is why, even as identical twins are born, no two people are the same.
Identical twins differ as soon as they are born, one is there the other isn't. Then they are both there. etc, etc.
By experience alone, ignoring differences in parental chemical contributions in utero, they are identical in the womb. exactly the same experiences: Mother's heartbeat, muffled world outside and someone else in there with them. But as soon as one is born, they become different. One is 'puking and mewling' the other is suddenly alone.

It seems to me that what is suggested is the 'two soul theory'. (Japanese? Chinese?) So now you are discussing existentialism: Me and everything else.

I'd say that it's probably impossible to experience something, anything and remain the same, Even as you experience it you are becoming a different person. Which is substantially, the Heisenberg Principle: What you observe, you affect and conversely: what you observe affects you.

So take my adopted 'religion'. (Yes I'm a Star Wars freak but without the midiclorians) There is a force (God?) generated by all living things that surrounds us and penetrates us.

That force (Gaia? I'm an 'I robot'icist too) lives to experience. Its essential 'meaning' is experience. It recreates itelf every day, it also dies every day, so that every tiniest fraction of it struggles towards experiencing every possible combination that is available. The Galileoes and the Harijans (untouchables), the Ghandies and the Hitlers, the paedeophiles and the innocents.

You are one with the universe. And every single thing in that universe. You are as much to blame for September 11 as you are for Mother Teresa.

You are that hijacker and you are that nun.

Oh Hell, I thought at least the Marxist would eschew the mystical stuff.

Your first sentence about that passage being out of context was perceptive. This is from my notes of Harris trying to explain the insights one can get from meditation. He contends (and I agree) that there is nothing mystical about it, it is just gaining some insight about the nature of consciousness.

(It has occurred to me that similar insights may be available from taking LSD.)

 

[mismused]

delete