Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Roses on April 27, 2019, 01:53:47 PM
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004hqk
I have just watched this documentary with Miriam Margolyes. The Americans who think it will be possible to physically live forever are bonkers, imo. But see what you think.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004hqk
I have just watched this documentary with Miriam Margolyes. The Americans who think it will be possible to physically live forever are bonkers, imo. But see what you think.
sorry but that's a bit too much like homework for me thanks :o
-
The only way we can live forever is by...killing ourselves!
-
The only way we can live forever is by...killing ourselves!
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
-
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
a mind in conflict with its self ,LR . but not that surprising really .
unless it was an attempt at humour ?
-
The only way we can live forever is by...killing ourselves!
That is the essence of spirituality. I of course, didn't expect anyone here to understand THAT! ;)
-
That is the essence of spirituality. I of course, didn't expect anyone here to understand THAT! ;)
Being dead is your idea of spiritual?
-
:D Well...one part dies and another part awakens and blossoms!
-
:D Well...one part dies and another part awakens and blossoms!
More from Sriram's personal fantasy world... ::)
-
:D Well...one part dies and another part awakens and blossoms!
How do you know this?
Can you demonstrare this is is it just a daft assertion?
-
You guys seem so scared of such concepts..its remarkable! :D You people are so quick to get together and laugh it off...!
People can only demonstrate what I am saying, to themselves. But certain objective techniques and methods are prescribed after following which (for a few years at least) you could get an idea of what I am talking about. Not otherwise.
-
You guys seem so scared of such concepts..its remarkable! :D You people are so quick to get together and laugh it off...!
People can only demonstrate what I am saying, to themselves. But certain objective techniques and methods are prescribed after following which (for a few years at least) you could get an idea of what I am talking about. Not otherwise.
What do you think will happen to all those souls existing for ever when the sun turns this planet into a place unsuitable for life and then our galaxy collapses into a black hole?
-
You guys seem so scared of such concepts..its remarkable! :D
I have no idea why you think anybody is (or would be) scared of your baseless and rather silly assertions.
You people are so quick to get together and laugh it off...!
Your naivety, overly credulous attitude to woo, and especially your multiple misunderstandings, are actually rather funny.
People can only demonstrate what I am saying, to themselves. But certain objective techniques and methods are prescribed after following which (for a few years at least) you could get an idea of what I am talking about. Not otherwise.
"If you really, really try hard to take this seriously, you'll end up taking it seriously." ::)
-
Well...what are all you 'atheist' guys doing on a Religion board......throwing scorn and ridicule...at religious and spiritual discussions??!! You are obviously trying to draw solace from repeated reiteration of your 'beliefs'.
-
Well...what are all you 'atheist' guys doing on a Religion board......throwing scorn and ridicule...at religious and spiritual discussions??!! You are obviously trying to draw solace from repeated reiteration of your 'beliefs'.
Posters are going to pour scorn on your comments when you make crazy statements, like, The only way we can live forever is by...killing ourselves!
-
Well...what are all you 'atheist' guys doing on a Religion board......throwing scorn and ridicule...at religious and spiritual discussions??!! You are obviously trying to draw solace from repeated reiteration of your 'beliefs'.
Speaking only for myself, I do find some of your ideas entertaining if, somewhat misguided.
I am still on this board as a direct result of being on the BBC equivalent before it disappeared. I found it fascinating to read other people's points of view about all sorts of things(including yours, Sriram). I don't believe in cutting oneself off from awkward questioning or challenges to one's own point of view. In my case, I think that this is one way in which one can develop one's mind and thinking processes. As far as your idea of 'scorn and ridicule' are concerned, the only views I express are the views I hold, sometimes in direct contrast to yours. If you view such criticism(e.g. post 8 on your latest 'religion and spirituality' thread) as being scornful or trying to ridicule you, then so be it, but You are wrong. They are as open and as honest appraisal of what I think as the ideas that you produce.
As regards your idea that I am drawing 'solace'from a 'repeated reiteration' of my beliefs(or lack of them), I don't think so. The same accusation can be leveled at you, of course. E.g. just read Bramble's reply 9 on the 'Re Religion & Spirituality Thread' which you started.
-
Well...what are all you 'atheist' guys doing on a Religion board......throwing scorn and ridicule...at religious and spiritual discussions??!! You are obviously trying to draw solace from repeated reiteration of your 'beliefs'.
Pots and kettles spring unbidden to mind. You are not in a good place to criticise others for repeated reiteration of beliefs, and you've devoted entire blog posts to attempting to belittle those you disagree with.
Why do atheists come to religion boards to criticise? I can only speak for myself, but I suspect it's for the same reason religious people do: to get their message across. Your particular beliefs may be (mostly) harmless fantasies, but the notion that we can ignore critical thinking, rationality, and evidence in reaching conclusions about the world, is worrying to say the least. I am here, in part, to challenge that way of thinking.
There are other reasons, of course, for example, some posts are interesting, challenging, or informative (and not always from people who I agree with).
-
Well...what are all you 'atheist' guys doing on a Religion board......throwing scorn and ridicule...at religious and spiritual discussions??!! You are obviously trying to draw solace from repeated reiteration of your 'beliefs'.
Many of your posts talk about spiritual people being more developed than those who aren't, that non spiritual people think microscopically, or within boxes and other such phrases. You post that atheists are limited in thinking. You repeatedly repost your beliefs. Pot, kettle, black.
-
Well...what are all you 'atheist' guys doing on a Religion board......throwing scorn and ridicule...at religious and spiritual discussions??!! You are obviously trying to draw solace from repeated reiteration of your 'beliefs'.
You seem to be missing the point of Discussion Boards.
-
Many of your posts talk about spiritual people being more developed than those who aren't, that non spiritual people think microscopically, or within boxes and other such phrases. You post that atheists are limited in thinking. You repeatedly repost your beliefs. Pot, kettle, black.
Well...no! People who believe in spirituality or religious matters need not be more developed than atheists. It depends on our intent and attitude.
-
Well...no! People who believe in spirituality or religious matters need not be more developed than atheists. It depends on our intent and attitude.
So why do you keep posting as if they are?
-
You just can't understand...that is all! You have your preconceived ideas of Abrahamic religions and their views of atheists....and you keep unloading that baggage on to everything.
-
You just can't understand...that is all! You have your preconceived ideas of Abrahamic religions and their views of atheists....and you keep unloading that baggage on to everything.
I'm pretty sure that sentence meant something to you when you typed it
-
I'm pretty sure that sentence meant something to you when you typed it
...I'm not as sure as you are about that!
-
The only way we can live forever is by...killing ourselves!
By which I suppose you mean we should recognise the 'illusory nature of the ego, and lose ourselves in the omnipresent Brahman'? The ego, however, has a very important function, and allows us to perform everyday tasks and also to relate to phenomena in the everyday world - including other people. It is unfortunate that some of the most gifted humans - who have contributed enormously to general human welfare - have had enormous egos (and then of course there's Donald Trump - I'm not saying this is a sine qua non).
Likewise, those with a reputation for 'saintliness' i.e. losing themselves in a bliss of oceanic feeling, have often been bloody useless and a liability.
Some western pundits have equated these two ways of looking at the world with 'left-brain' and 'right-brain' consciousness (the left being more ego-centred). The ideal would be to co-ordinate both.
But maybe you didn't mean anything like this, and I'm just waffling (I hear a thousand voices crying "True!")
Maybe you could explain more clearly what you did mean.....
-
You just can't understand...that is all!
What can't I understand?
You have your preconceived ideas of Abrahamic religions and their views of atheists....and you keep unloading that baggage on to everything.
What has that got to do with the question I asked?
-
By which I suppose you mean we should recognise the 'illusory nature of the ego, and lose ourselves in the omnipresent Brahman'? The ego, however, has a very important function, and allows us to perform everyday tasks and also to relate to phenomena in the everyday world - including other people. It is unfortunate that some of the most gifted humans - who have contributed enormously to general human welfare - have had enormous egos (and then of course there's Donald Trump - I'm not saying this is a sine qua non).
Likewise, those with a reputation for 'saintliness' i.e. losing themselves in a bliss of oceanic feeling, have often been bloody useless and a liability.
Some western pundits have equated these two ways of looking at the world with 'left-brain' and 'right-brain' consciousness (the left being more ego-centred). The ideal would be to co-ordinate both.
But maybe you didn't mean anything like this, and I'm just waffling (I hear a thousand voices crying "True!")
Maybe you could explain more clearly what you did mean.....
Another way of putting it might be 'find 'ourselves' in Brahman ... and 'find' ourselves in bliss' as opposed to 'lose' as it is as much about being conscious rather than subconscious. It is a difficult process to 'die to self' especially as from an early age there appears to be a necessity to quickly develop an ego/self to cope with other already well established 'selves' in the world. There is also the difficulty of escaping from the attraction of collective 'selves' e.g. national, racial, political, religious etc. I think 'co-ordination' would be in the sense of finding the source of joy/bliss within and exporting it rather than looking for it externally and importing it.
-
The only way we can live forever is by...killing ourselves!
Well, according to your beliefs we are all reincarnated until such time as we attain moksha, which for us lot who ‘just can’t understand’ is presumably never, so the default position is living forever, or have I got that wrong? Isn’t the very purpose of your religion to stop coming back for more? Seriously though, one has to wonder at humans. For most people, it seems, the problem is dying, but for Hindus and Buddhists it’s the opposite! Some folk are just never happy. Do other animals get this screwed up or are humans uniquely bonkers?
I can understand why people who don’t want to die might come up with the idea of post-mortem continuity, but it’s much harder to fathom why those committed to personal extinction would saddle themselves with the nightmare of eternal return, unless of course they weren’t quite so keen on dying as they claimed. Maybe there’s a sleight of hand at work here somewhere or am I being too cynical? It might explain why you seem to be talking up the virtues of living forever, even if it involves killing yourself first.
But really, Sriram, does life have to be this complicated? Sometimes religions look very much like solutions in search of a problem - and what would we do without problems like ourselves to transcend? Whether we think of death or living forever as the problem to overcome, Alexis de Tocqueville surely made an astute observation when he wrote that ‘evils which are patiently endured when they seem inevitable become intolerable when once the idea of escape from them is suggested.’
-
Our odd relationship with death is not just influential in terms of religion, though it could be argued that transhumanism is merely a religion in the lab.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
-
Yes, I think transhumanism is old wine in a new skin, as perhaps is our modern secular vision of progress. Whatever the species of transcendence advocated it's always a quest to be somewhere else, somewhere better - which curiously condemns us to ongoing dissatisfaction. Maybe it's the inevitable counterpart of a linear view of time which seems to be going somewhere, hence the human preoccupation with purpose and the sense of life as a story. Anyway, it all gives us plenty of material to furnish our brief existences with cosmic import, whether triumphant or merely tragic. Perhaps it doesn't matter, just as long as it means something.
-
Well, according to your beliefs we are all reincarnated until such time as we attain moksha, which for us lot who ‘just can’t understand’ is presumably never, so the default position is living forever, or have I got that wrong? Isn’t the very purpose of your religion to stop coming back for more? Seriously though, one has to wonder at humans. For most people, it seems, the problem is dying, but for Hindus and Buddhists it’s the opposite! Some folk are just never happy. Do other animals get this screwed up or are humans uniquely bonkers?
I can understand why people who don’t want to die might come up with the idea of post-mortem continuity, but it’s much harder to fathom why those committed to personal extinction would saddle themselves with the nightmare of eternal return, unless of course they weren’t quite so keen on dying as they claimed. Maybe there’s a sleight of hand at work here somewhere or am I being too cynical? It might explain why you seem to be talking up the virtues of living forever, even if it involves killing yourself first.
But really, Sriram, does life have to be this complicated? Sometimes religions look very much like solutions in search of a problem - and what would we do without problems like ourselves to transcend? Whether we think of death or living forever as the problem to overcome, Alexis de Tocqueville surely made an astute observation when he wrote that ‘evils which are patiently endured when they seem inevitable become intolerable when once the idea of escape from them is suggested.’
You are not getting the point at all. Yours is a typical microscopic psychological analysis of the ego mind and how it might work. I am talking about another part of ourselves that is not related to the ego and is independent of our normal psychological motivations.
The ego related consciousness should die for the higher self to come out. That is the point of all spiritual and basic religious practices.
-
You are not getting the point at all. Yours is a typical microscopic psychological analysis of the ego mind and how it might work. I am talking about another part of ourselves that is not related to the ego and is independent of our normal psychological motivations.
The ego related consciousness should die for the higher self to come out. That is the point of all spiritual and basic religious practices.
Whatever that is supposed to mean? ::)
-
You are not getting the point at all. Yours is a typical microscopic psychological analysis of the ego mind and how it might work. I am talking about another part of ourselves that is not related to the ego and is independent of our normal psychological motivations.
The ego related consciousness should die for the higher self to come out. That is the point of all spiritual and basic religious practices.
I got your point well enough, Sriram. It's hardly the first time you've made it and you might recall that I've shared my differences with you on the matter more than once, which is why I didn't trouble you with my arguments again on this occasion. Instead I attempted to make a different point, one which it seems you didn't get or at least chose to ignore. Never mind, I didn't really expect you to bite.
-
Ok...so what was your point exactly?
-
Seriously?
-
Seriously?
Yes....
-
You are not getting the point at all. Yours is a typical microscopic psychological analysis of the ego mind and how it might work. I am talking about another part of ourselves that is not related to the ego and is independent of our normal psychological motivations.
The ego related consciousness should die for the higher self to come out. That is the point of all spiritual and basic religious practices.
Why should I believe that this higher self exists? I can't see any evidence for it. Why do you think that all of human experience can't be explained by "microscopic analysis"?
-
Why should I believe that this higher self exists? I can't see any evidence for it. Why do you think that all of human experience can't be explained by "microscopic analysis"?
You don't have to 'believe'. You just follow certain practices and you will know automatically and all aspects of life will fall into place.
-
On the other hand... giving up certain practices may allow for logical thinking.
-
You don't have to 'believe'. You just follow certain practices and you will know automatically and all aspects of life will fall into place.
when someone points out I'm wrong about something and can demonstrate why , I don't keep repeating it . I learn.
For some reason , you don't . Why is that?
-
when someone points out I'm wrong about something and can demonstrate why , I don't keep repeating it . I learn.
For some reason , you don't . Why is that?
That's quite simple, Walter! That's because you people just think that you have made a very convincing argument and have demonstrated something meaningful. In actuality nothing of that kind has happened.
It is like religious people who talk of faith in some deity or scripture, always believe that they are saying something very convincing and conclusive, when in fact they are not.
-
You don't have to 'believe'. You just follow certain practices and you will know automatically and all aspects of life will fall into place.
Unless you can provide some independent objective evidence, then claiming that you will come to believe something as a result of following certain practices, even if it's true, is not evidence of the truth of the belief. It is only evidence that the practices convince people of it. I'd also be willing to bet that if somebody followed the practices you suggest and didn't come to the same belief, you'd claim that the hadn't followed them 'properly'.
All we have here is your subjective belief that you formed after following these practices and your blind faith that said belief is objectively true.
As for "all aspects of life" falling into place; that obviously doesn't include logical thought, clear thinking, or the ability to learn from errors; neither does it appear to prevent you from stubbornly clinging to obvious and easily corrected misunderstandings.
-
You don't have to 'believe'.
Well I do though, don't I. Because whenever anybody puts this question to you, we get vague verbiage like...
You just follow certain practices and you will know automatically and all aspects of life will fall into place.
... as an answer.
-
The only way we can live forever is by...killing ourselves!
Of course and I'm sure you're absolutely right Sriram, oh' yes, don't forget to keep that little bird well fed, you know, the one that picks out the tell your fortune cards for you.
By the way, I've no fear of these beliefs of yours other than if they were to involve ritual cuttings or slaughter, I might not be so keen on any of that and how's things with the blue Elephant headed whatever you call it?
Regards ippy
-
You don't have to 'believe'. You just follow certain practices and you will know automatically and all aspects of life will fall into place.
....... you people just think that you have made a very convincing argument and have demonstrated something meaningful. In actuality nothing of that kind has happened.
-
I think you people must understand that when I talk of a Higher Self it is not something 'supernatural' or out of this world. It is that part of yourself that is loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive. You know it already.
-
I think you people must understand that when I talk of a Higher Self it is not something 'supernatural' or out of this world. It is that part of yourself that is loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive. You know it already.
you mean that part of yourself that allows others to walk all over you!
-
I think you people must understand that when I talk of a Higher Self it is not something 'supernatural' or out of this world. It is that part of yourself that is loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive. You know it already.
I quite accept that we have the capacity to be 'loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive.' The difference is, of course, that I see all these qualities reflected in naure generally as they can be useful and significant survival mechanisms. Hence, the idea that they are part of some sort of 'Higher Self' seems to me to be some sort of post rationalization of what is essentially a natural part of our natures just as is our capacity to hate, to not cooperate, to be intensely selfish and to be very competitive, each of which can also be extremely useful in aiding survival depending on the situation.
As a social species that is capable of reflecting on the results of our immediate and future actions, and is potentially able to learn by our mistakes, it seems to me that we need to encourage many of these qualities as and when appropriate to the well being of our species and which which might well include how we affect other species and nature generally.
However the idea of a 'higher self' for me limits this approach somewhat as it presupposes that there is such a thing when there is no evidence to suggest this. It also tends towards the idea that such a 'higher self' is to some extent related to the idea that it is some part of us related to some sort of universal and eternal state that cannot be reached unless we follow the correct disciplines, be that through meditation techniques or religious fervour when we are all capable of the qualities that you enumerate by a myriad of methods or indeed needing no method at all because they are all qualities which are part of our natures.
-
I quite accept that we have the capacity to be 'loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive.' The difference is, of course, that I see all these qualities reflected in naure generally as they can be useful and significant survival mechanisms. Hence, the idea that they are part of some sort of 'Higher Self' seems to me to be some sort of post rationalization of what is essentially a natural part of our natures just as is our capacity to hate, to not cooperate, to be intensely selfish and to be very competitive, each of which can also be extremely useful in aiding survival depending on the situation.
As a social species that is capable of reflecting on the results of our immediate and future actions, and is potentially able to learn by our mistakes, it seems to me that we need to encourage many of these qualities as and when appropriate to the well being of our species and which which might well include how we affect other species and nature generally.
However the idea of a 'higher self' for me limits this approach somewhat as it presupposes that there is such a thing when there is no evidence to suggest this. It also tends towards the idea that such a 'higher self' is to some extent related to the idea that it is some part of us related to some sort of universal and eternal state that cannot be reached unless we follow the correct disciplines, be that through meditation techniques or religious fervour when we are all capable of the qualities that you enumerate by a myriad of methods or indeed needing no method at all because they are all qualities which are part of our natures.
Super post. If only this could be taught to and understood by all - but the hundreds of thousands of superstitions leading to religious beliefs have built up a just about insurmountable barrier. It will I am sure be gradually lowered to a more manageable level, but oh, so slowly! Perhaps one day, when knowledge is widespread enough, and maybe the pace of that will increase, then it will tumble but not soon.
-
I quite accept that we have the capacity to be 'loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive.' The difference is, of course, that I see all these qualities reflected in naure generally as they can be useful and significant survival mechanisms. Hence, the idea that they are part of some sort of 'Higher Self' seems to me to be some sort of post rationalization of what is essentially a natural part of our natures just as is our capacity to hate, to not cooperate, to be intensely selfish and to be very competitive, each of which can also be extremely useful in aiding survival depending on the situation.
As a social species that is capable of reflecting on the results of our immediate and future actions, and is potentially able to learn by our mistakes, it seems to me that we need to encourage many of these qualities as and when appropriate to the well being of our species and which which might well include how we affect other species and nature generally.
However the idea of a 'higher self' for me limits this approach somewhat as it presupposes that there is such a thing when there is no evidence to suggest this. It also tends towards the idea that such a 'higher self' is to some extent related to the idea that it is some part of us related to some sort of universal and eternal state that cannot be reached unless we follow the correct disciplines, be that through meditation techniques or religious fervour when we are all capable of the qualities that you enumerate by a myriad of methods or indeed needing no method at all because they are all qualities which are part of our natures.
What is there no evidence for? There is evidence for consciousness. There is evidence for human consciousness moving to more selfless, universal and integrative levels.
You are assuming that all this is a chance product of brain development (some 'need to survive'). I am assuming that it is not a product of the brain but is something independent of the brain. Level of Consciousness and brain development moving in tandem.
-
What is there no evidence for? There is evidence for consciousness. There is evidence for human consciousness moving to more selfless, universal and integrative levels.
You are assuming that all this is a chance product of brain development (some 'need to survive'). I am assuming that it is not a product of the brain but is something independent of the brain. Level of Consciousness and brain development moving in tandem.
well at least you admit its just an assumption and as such it can be dismissed . Unless you've got some evidence to back it up .
On you go …………….
-
I once spent 6 months in Nepal trying to find myself . I wasn't there. Turns out I was in ASDA in Leeds
-
You are assuming that all this is a chance product of brain development (some 'need to survive').
All the evidence is that it is a product of evolution.
BTW, there is no mysterious "need to survive" - if only you could be bothered to correct your pitiful misunderstanding of the subject, the reason would be obvious.
I am assuming that it is not a product of the brain but is something independent of the brain. Level of Consciousness and brain development moving in tandem.
There is no evidence whatsoever for this. This is what is called "blind faith".
-
we are all capable of the qualities that you enumerate by a myriad of methods or indeed needing no method at all because they are all qualities which are part of our natures.
Now would be a good time to advertise these methods or no methods. Perhaps the House of Commons would benefit. :)
-
Now would be a good time to advertise these methods or no methods. Perhaps the House of Commons would benefit. :)
It happens all the time, Ekim. There are plenty of people who show Sriram's 'higher self'. Here's just one, who lives not that far from where I live. The pilot also showed the same qualities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-47372565
-
It happens all the time, Ekim. There are plenty of people who show Sriram's 'higher self'. Here's just one, who lives not that far from where I live. The pilot also showed the same qualities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-47372565
Yes...precisely! I never said people don't. Many people across the world exhibit the qualities of the Higher Self.
-
What is there no evidence for? There is evidence for consciousness. There is evidence for human consciousness moving to more selfless, universal and integrative levels.
You are assuming that all this is a chance product of brain development (some 'need to survive'). I am assuming that it is not a product of the brain but is something independent of the brain. Level of Consciousness and brain development moving in tandem.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/
-
Yes...precisely! I never said people don't. Many people across the world exhibit the qualities of the Higher Self.
'Higher self' is just your term for people who behave in a good, decent way, it isn't meaningful, imo.
-
It happens all the time, Ekim. There are plenty of people who show Sriram's 'higher self'. Here's just one, who lives not that far from where I live. The pilot also showed the same qualities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-47372565
Yes, it's a pity that Sriram is using the expression 'higher self' as opposed to Atman, but it was the 'myriad of methods' you mentioned that I was more interested in, particularly if there is one which sustains the qualities mentioned so that that same pilot did not feel obliged to drop bombs on German children whilst self sacrificing to save English children.
-
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/
Your heroic levels of ignorance and staggering lack of reasoning ability never cease to amaze.
This is a true classic:
There are several reasons to believe that the Mind is not entirely a product of the brain and is not generated merely as a result of the electrical and chemical impulses in the brain.
What are these reasons?
I will begin with some commonsensical and simple reasons ….. and then go on to more complex and compelling reasons for a dualistic system.
1.Some basic reasons.
a)The brain did not create itself. It is obviously just a product of our stem cells and DNA. If we have to classify any part of the human anatomy as ‘Intelligent’ and ‘self willed’, it has to be our DNA and not the brain.
b) The brain does not function independently of the total human anatomy and physiology. Without the other organs in the body, the brain cannot function at all. If other vital organs fail, the brain will also die. Since the brain did not create the complex human system and was only produced as a part of the total system, there has to be an agency independent of the system that decides its role in the system. Therefore considering the Brain as a overall controlling and pivotal entity is clearly not correct.
Is Fundies Say the Darndest Things still going?
-
Yes, it's a pity that Sriram is using the expression 'higher self' as opposed to Atman, but it was the 'myriad of methods' you mentioned that I was more interested in, particularly if there is one which sustains the qualities mentioned so that that same pilot did not feel obliged to drop bombs on German children whilst self sacrificing to save English children.
I would say that it was obvious that people find many ways of expressing their natural qualities of Sriram's 'higher mind', e.g. through their social interaction, their culture, their natural instincts in certain situations. Some of these may be encouraged by methods of learning which might include meditation, schooling, emphasizing and praising individuals who show these qualities.
I would also remind you that I also suggested that those natural instincts also include the opposites of Sriram's 'higher mind' qualities.(see the first paragraph of post 47)
As regards your comment on the pilot, it seems to me that you are making a gross simplification of what happened. For instance, I doubt if that pilot deliberately targeted German children, but, on the other hand, it seems he did deliberately target his plane away from the English children. Also, it might be that the powers that be of that time thought that the bombings over Germany would lead to eventual German surrender which they thought was a good thing, however right/wrong we may see their actions now.
The point I am making is that Sriram's 'higher mind' is as much a part of human nature as qualities which wouldn't be included in his summation. All are part of what it is to be human(and, incidentally, can be shown to be present in a variety of other animals). It's no big deal and there is no evidence at all that there is the presence of any entity which cannot be explained by the workings of the brain.
-
I would say that it was obvious that people find many ways of expressing their natural qualities of Sriram's 'higher mind', e.g. through their social interaction, their culture, their natural instincts in certain situations. Some of these may be encouraged by methods of learning which might include meditation, schooling, emphasizing and praising individuals who show these qualities.
I would also remind you that I also suggested that those natural instincts also include the opposites of Sriram's 'higher mind' qualities.(see the first paragraph of post 47)
As regards your comment on the pilot, it seems to me that you are making a gross simplification of what happened. For instance, I doubt if that pilot deliberately targeted German children, but, on the other hand, it seems he did deliberately target his plane away from the English children. Also, it might be that the powers that be of that time thought that the bombings over Germany would lead to eventual German surrender which they thought was a good thing, however right/wrong we may see their actions now.
The point I am making is that Sriram's 'higher mind' is as much a part of human nature as qualities which wouldn't be included in his summation. All are part of what it is to be human(and, incidentally, can be shown to be present in a variety of other animals). It's no big deal and there is no evidence at all that there is the presence of any entity which cannot be explained by the workings of the brain.
OK, well I'll accept that what you say is based upon Sriram's interpretation of 'higher self', which I'll leave him answer. It is not how I see the idea of Atman and the method's used to identify with that element said to be the essence of man. The methods used tend to be about transcending what you call natural instincts which are generally used to support ego/self centred behaviour whether individualistic or collective. As regards bombing raids, I should think that most pilots would be aware that such attacks result in what is euphemistically called collateral damage. Often to overcome any moral squeamishness dehumanising words like 'the enemy' or 'target' is used and duty to your own group is emphasised. Advanced technology aids and abets indiscriminate actions. Whether,what goes under the heading of Atman, exists is up to the individual to discover if he or she is open to the possibility. I am not optimistic that it will change the way the world is heading. Srilanka is a part of the world exposed to such teachings but this article shows the limitations. ...... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/world/asia/sri-lanka-attacks-death-threats.html
-
OK, well I'll accept that what you say is based upon Sriram's interpretation of 'higher self', which I'll leave him answer. It is not how I see the idea of Atman and the method's used to identify with that element said to be the essence of man. The methods used tend to be about transcending what you call natural instincts which are generally used to support ego/self centred behaviour whether individualistic or collective. As regards bombing raids, I should think that most pilots would be aware that such attacks result in what is euphemistically called collateral damage. Often to overcome any moral squeamishness dehumanising words like 'the enemy' or 'target' is used and duty to your own group is emphasised. Advanced technology aids and abets indiscriminate actions. Whether,what goes under the heading of Atman, exists is up to the individual to discover if he or she is open to the possibility. I am not optimistic that it will change the way the world is heading. Srilanka is a part of the world exposed to such teachings but this article shows the limitations. ...... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/world/asia/sri-lanka-attacks-death-threats.html
Well, my original response was to what Sriram had actually said.
However, you asked for methods, I gave you some. In fact there is a school of thought, with some justification, that education is a major method for enlightening the mind to possibilities which you would no doubt call 'transcending our natural instincts' but which I would call using our innate ability to reflect upon what we do and potentially learn from our mistakes, as I referred to in my original post.
Hence, education can lead to a more balanced view of looking at things. As Steven Pinker suggests in his book 'Enlightenment Now'(p235):
You unlearn dangerous superstition, such as that leaders rule by divine right, or that people who do not look like you are less than human. You learn that there are other cultures that are as tied to their ways of life as you are to yours, and for no better or worse reason. You learn that charismatic saviors have led their countries to disaster. You learn that your own convictions, no matter how heartfelt or popular, may be mistaken. You learn that there are better and worse ways to live, and that other people and other cultures may know things that you don't. Not least, you learn that there are other ways of resolving conflicts without violence.
He goes on to suggest that studies on the effect of education suggest that educated people are 'less racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and authoritarian.'
-
When we say 'educated' it doesn't necessarily mean people who have gone through the modern schooling system and graduated from some university.
Many people who have never finished school can be very wise and integrative. Many people with lofty degrees can be small minded and even scoundrels.
Education is about a state of mind and about perception.
-
Education is about a state of mind and about perception.
You are just redefining words to suit your own purposes now.
-
Well, my original response was to what Sriram had actually said.
However, you asked for methods, I gave you some. In fact there is a school of thought, with some justification, that education is a major method for enlightening the mind to possibilities which you would no doubt call 'transcending our natural instincts' but which I would call using our innate ability to reflect upon what we do and potentially learn from our mistakes, as I referred to in my original post. Hence, education can lead to a more balanced view of looking at things. As Steven Pinker suggests in his book 'Enlightenment Now'(p235):
He goes on to suggest that studies on the effect of education suggest that educated people are 'less racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and authoritarian.'
If I can pick out something from your first paragraph .... our innate ability to reflect ... is probably close to what Atman represents in the sense that it is inborn and relies upon consciousness and allows a 'balanced view' provided that it is not attached to conceptual or emotional elements of the mind. The so called 'spiritual methods' tend to be stillness practices towards sustaining that inner state and identifying with it, rather than with the mental forms and forces that surrounds it and go to make up the ego/self. As regards the Pinker quote, the House of Commons is full of well educated people but harmony doesn't seem to be much in evidence and 'racist, sexist, homophobic and authoritarian' elements still seem to arise.
-
Sriram,
When we say 'educated' it doesn't necessarily mean people who have gone through the modern schooling system and graduated from some university.
who is 'we' in this context? It certainly doesn't include me. I'm with those 170 countries who signed up to a UN declaration that recognized education as a fundamental human right in 1966, and today education is compulsory in many countries. That's how importantly it is regarded.
Many people who have never finished school can be very wise and integrative. Many people with lofty degrees can be small minded and even scoundrels.
Of course. I would have thought that was obvious. If you bother to read my last sentence again,
He goes on to suggest that studies on the effect of education suggest that educated people are 'less racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and authoritarian.'
then you would realise that these are tendencies that apply to most people, not every individual.
Education is about a state of mind and about perception.
That's your rather biased and idiosyncratic take on it, Sriram, probably because it fits in with your own preconceived ideas on how your version of the world works.
I'll stick with the Oxford dictionary definitions, if you don't mind:
The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university.
1.1 The theory and practice of teaching.
1.2 A body of knowledge acquired while being educated.
1.3 Information about or training in a particular subject.
and disregard yours.
-
If I can pick out something from your first paragraph .... our innate ability to reflect ... is probably close to what Atman represents in the sense that it is inborn and relies upon consciousness and allows a 'balanced view' provided that it is not attached to conceptual or emotional elements of the mind. The so called 'spiritual methods' tend to be stillness practices towards sustaining that inner state and identifying with it, rather than with the mental forms and forces that surrounds it and go to make up the ego/self. As regards the Pinker quote, the House of Commons is full of well educated people but harmony doesn't seem to be much in evidence and 'racist, sexist, homophobic and authoritarian' elements still seem to arise.
Ekim,
If you want to use your idea of inner stillness, and techniques that encourage this state, then be my guest. I have nothing against them at all. I simply say that there are a variety of other methods which can achieve Sriram's desired 'higher self, many of them practical and mundane.
As regards the House of Commons, the hugely competitive atmosphere and the powerful tribalist forces at work within its precincts are, as I have already said, examples of the very qualities which are just as much present in the human pysche as Sriram's 'higher self'. Nevertheless, it has within my lifetime passed what I consider to be enlightened and important pieces of legislation at times.(E.g. same sex marriage, abortion laws, the creation of the N.H.S. abolition of the death penalty).
As regards the Pinker quote, he was talking about the tendency for education to reduce these harmful qualities, and, moreover, backed it up by pointing towards some studies which have been carried out to that effect.
-
People have long admired honeybees for their extraordinary social cooperation. If only we could get along this well together. Despite being mere animals (and millions of years older than modern humans) the bees would appear to be model exemplars of what Sriram calls the ‘higher self’ and all without engaging in years of ‘objective techniques and methods’, yet the difference between our two species is down to genetics. Humans will never be like bees, even though we may look to them for ‘spiritual’ inspiration. Unlike us, bees are not busy wrecking the planet nor do they wage war on their own kind, and it is doubtful whether they occupy themselves with fantasies about living forever or transcending their own natures. Of course, they don’t send rockets to Mars or post comments on internet forums and most live for only a few weeks, but only in our eyes could that possibly diminish them. Perhaps the humble admiration of bees could be added to the list of methods by which humans might ennoble themselves while they still have time.
-
People have long admired honeybees for their extraordinary social cooperation. If only we could get along this well together. Despite being mere animals (and millions of years older than modern humans) the bees would appear to be model exemplars of what Sriram calls the ‘higher self’ and all without engaging in years of ‘objective techniques and methods’, yet the difference between our two species is down to genetics. Humans will never be like bees, even though we may look to them for ‘spiritual’ inspiration. Unlike us, bees are not busy wrecking the planet nor do they wage war on their own kind, and it is doubtful whether they occupy themselves with fantasies about living forever or transcending their own natures. Of course, they don’t send rockets to Mars or post comments on internet forums and most live for only a few weeks, but only in our eyes could that possibly diminish them. Perhaps the humble admiration of bees could be added to the list of methods by which humans might ennoble themselves while they still have time.
I like this. :)
-
One female egg producer with her harem of a few male drones and masses of workers all dedicated to the offspring of the few, now that's altruism.
-
Hi Bramble,
People have long admired honeybees for their extraordinary social cooperation. If only we could get along this well together. Despite being mere animals (and millions of years older than modern humans) the bees would appear to be model exemplars of what Sriram calls the ‘higher self’ and all without engaging in years of ‘objective techniques and methods’, yet the difference between our two species is down to genetics. Humans will never be like bees, even though we may look to them for ‘spiritual’ inspiration. Unlike us, bees are not busy wrecking the planet nor do they wage war on their own kind, and it is doubtful whether they occupy themselves with fantasies about living forever or transcending their own natures. Of course, they don’t send rockets to Mars or post comments on internet forums and most live for only a few weeks, but only in our eyes could that possibly diminish them. Perhaps the humble admiration of bees could be added to the list of methods by which humans might ennoble themselves while they still have time.
The problem with that is that our (and perhaps some other) species value individualism. If, say, you were to have a beautiful healthy baby and I were to say something like, “that’s lovely, but we have six very ill babes over here and if we harvest your baby’s organs those six will leave while yours will die” you (presumably) would object in the strongest terms whereas a bee concerned only with the collective good would not.
In other words we could do as the bees do – but only at a huge and dehumanising cost.
-
Hi Bramble,
The problem with that is that our (and perhaps some other) species value individualism. If, say, you were to have a beautiful healthy baby and I were to say something like, “that’s lovely, but we have six very ill babes over here and if we harvest your baby’s organs those six will leave while yours will die” you (presumably) would object in the strongest terms whereas a bee concerned only with the collective good would not.
In other words we could do as the bees do – but only at a huge and dehumanising cost.
Well, of course. We can admire them but, as I say, never be like them.
-
Hi Bramble,
Well, of course. We can admire them but, as I say, never be like them.
Well, you did also say, "If only we could get along this well together" but OK. You also said, "Despite being mere animals...the bees would appear to be model exemplars of what Sriram calls the ‘higher self’". I'm not sure that we'd think of them as necessarily "higher" in the aspirational sense this implies at all, but that's a matter for Sriram I guess.
Unlike us, bees are not busy wrecking the planet nor do they wage war on their own kind, and it is doubtful whether they occupy themselves with fantasies about living forever or transcending their own natures.
Again though, this implies something inherently "better' about bees. If miraculously overnight all predation of bees stopped we can't say though that they wouldn't become so dominant that they wouldn't evolve destructive behaviours too. They happen though to occupy a niche that prevents that, so they seem pretty benign. Our species on the other hand has no such boundaries - or at least not until the planet itself gives up on us - so we can and do behave as we please, no matter how destructive we are.
-
People have long admired honeybees for their extraordinary social cooperation. If only we could get along this well together. Despite being mere animals (and millions of years older than modern humans) the bees would appear to be model exemplars of what Sriram calls the ‘higher self’ and all without engaging in years of ‘objective techniques and methods’, yet the difference between our two species is down to genetics. Humans will never be like bees, even though we may look to them for ‘spiritual’ inspiration. Unlike us, bees are not busy wrecking the planet nor do they wage war on their own kind, and it is doubtful whether they occupy themselves with fantasies about living forever or transcending their own natures. Of course, they don’t send rockets to Mars or post comments on internet forums and most live for only a few weeks, but only in our eyes could that possibly diminish them. Perhaps the humble admiration of bees could be added to the list of methods by which humans might ennoble themselves while they still have time.
Well, if honey bees were to evolve an adaptation that made them so wildly successful that they destroyed the ecology of the planet, they would be unaware of the destruction they are wreaking. We, at least, have some measure of control of our destiny, even if sometimes it doesn't look like it.
-
Well.... ::)
About the Higher Self....it is not just about cooperation and group behavior. It is about compassion, wisdom, self awareness, universal perception, foresight, selflessness....and much more. It is also about a common consciousness that works from within all creatures.
Taking our self awareness to the level of realizing the Higher self is the objective of spirituality.
-
Sriram,
Well....
About the Higher Self....it is not just about cooperation and group behavior. It is about compassion, wisdom, self awareness, universal perception, foresight, selflessness....and much more.
So the things most of us either do intuitively or strive to do anyway with no claim to “spirituality” at all then.
It is also about a common consciousness that works from within all creatures.
What “common consciousness”? Clearly lots of organisms are conscious, and perhaps the brain architectures of those that are have some commonalities necessary for consciousness to exist at at all (though that’s debatable – consciousness may have evolved very differently, and multiple times too – just as, say, the eye has) but implying that we all tap in to some kind of universal property called “consciousness” is a collapse into woo again.
Taking our self awareness to the level of realizing the Higher self is the objective of spirituality.
Or perhaps of just trying to behave as responsible citizens.
-
Well.... ::)
About the Higher Self....it is not just about cooperation and group behavior. It is about compassion, wisdom, self awareness, universal perception, foresight, selflessness....and much more. It is also about a common consciousness that works from within all creatures.
Taking our self awareness to the level of realizing the Higher self is the objective of spirituality.
What is "universal perception"? Do you mean "being aware of everything in existence"? Or perhaps something a little less grandiose and achievable? Do you know of anyone who has achieved "Universal perception" (how would you know, unless you had it yourself anyway)?
-
Universal perception means ...seeing the entire universe as one single unit and everything in it as parts of the whole.
-
Sriram,
So the things most of us either do intuitively or strive to do anyway with no claim to “spirituality” at all then.
What “common consciousness”? Clearly lots of organisms are conscious, and perhaps the brain architectures of those that are have some commonalities necessary for consciousness to exist at at all (though that’s debatable – consciousness may have evolved very differently, and multiple times too – just as, say, the eye has) but implying that we all tap in to some kind of universal property called “consciousness” is a collapse into woo again.
Or perhaps of just trying to behave as responsible citizens.
It doesn't matter how we understand it or what words we use to describe it. As long as we become civilized, wise, compassionate and adopt a broad perspective....we will develop spiritually.
-
Sriram,
It doesn't matter how we understand it or what words we use to describe it. As long as we become civilized, wise, compassionate and adopt a broad perspective....we will develop spiritually.
I have no idea what you mean by "spiritually" and nor it seems have you. If we become more civilised, wise etc then we become more civilised, wise etc. The "spiritually" adds nothing - it's just white noise.
-
Sriram,
I have no idea what you mean by "spiritually" and nor it seems have you. If we become more civilised, wise etc then we become more civilised, wise etc. The "spiritually" adds nothing - it's just white noise.
Like!
I wonder if Sriram's thinking is somewhere along the Gaia theory route? Even if it is this post of yours would still apply to Sriram's thoughts on the subject imo, anyway it's all by far, too much woo for me thank you very much.
Regards ippy
-
It seems the word 'spiritual' is flung around haphazardly, randomly, anywwhere there's a gap into which it can be inserted,but when challenged, it is strange how few flingers can explain or define, even vaguely, what they mean. There's a lot of hand-waving, and the assumption that atheists do not have it, or cannot know what it is, but that's it!!
I know what I mean - and have said so quite a few times if I remember correctly!
-
In my view spirit is a symbolic word that comes from Latin spiritus which means breath (of god), breeze or air, a symbol of life. I believe both this and the Germanic word ghost are translations of the new testament Greek pneuma and the old testament Hebrew ruwach.
If you try to look at the nature of air through the eyes of people of that period I would suggest it would have these qualities - it is invisible but you can see its effect when it animates something, it is intangible but you can feel it when it moves towards you or you move towards it, if you try to grasp it you lose it, its source is unknown and yet it seems to be ever present, if you don't get it into you (inspiration), you die (expire). It's a short step from here to see that, perhaps, the Hebrew word neshama (translated as human soul) can mean breath, breathing, divine inspiration i.e. the breath of god in man, life. Of course, then it's easy to imagine evil spirits as breezes that blow one off course.
'Spirituality' could then be seen as an inner quest to discover the essence of life and remain ever conscious (of it). To do so, often entails inner stillness, sometimes called a centre of balance. Mental activity and emotions tend to be disturbances which distract from the task. To tie it to this topic, to remain ever conscious of the essence of life, is life eternal.
-
ekim,
In my view spirit is a symbolic word that comes from Latin spiritus which means breath (of god), breeze or air, a symbol of life. I believe both this and the Germanic word ghost are translations of the new testament Greek pneuma and the old testament Hebrew ruwach.
If you try to look at the nature of air through the eyes of people of that period I would suggest it would have these qualities - it is invisible but you can see its effect when it animates something, it is intangible but you can feel it when it moves towards you or you move towards it, if you try to grasp it you lose it, its source is unknown and yet it seems to be ever present, if you don't get it into you (inspiration), you die (expire). It's a short step from here to see that, perhaps, the Hebrew word neshama (translated as human soul) can mean breath, breathing, divine inspiration i.e. the breath of god in man, life. Of course, then it's easy to imagine evil spirits as breezes that blow one off course.
'Spirituality' could then be seen as an inner quest to discover the essence of life and remain ever conscious (of it). To do so, often entails inner stillness, sometimes called a centre of balance. Mental activity and emotions tend to be disturbances which distract from the task. To tie it to this topic, to remain ever conscious of the essence of life, is life eternal.
All very Patience Strong for those who like that sort of faux profundity I suppose. I find though that those who say “I’m spiritual I am” expect to be treated as though they have some special insight, whereas we poor saps with feet of clay miss the deep wonders to which only they have access. Utter bollocks of course – to paraphrase Richard Feynman, a garden is no less beautiful to someone who knows about photosynthesis.
-
ekim,
All very Patience Strong for those who like that sort of faux profundity I suppose. I find though that those who say “I’m spiritual I am” expect to be treated as though they have some special insight, whereas we poor saps with feet of clay miss the deep wonders to which only they have access. Utter bollocks of course – to paraphrase Richard Feynman, a garden is no less beautiful to someone who knows about photosynthesis.
No profundity intended, false or otherwise. It is just a view of how some of those engaged in 'spirituality' appear to support that view. There are many people in many walks of life who claim special recognition, it often goes with egotism and attention seeking, something the 'spiritual' are supposed to eliminate or sacrifice. Words like 'woo' utter bollocks', 'rubbish' are often emotional reactions expressed by those who think they are being talked down to, which is understandable. A garden is no less beautiful to someone who also knows about spirituality but there are some who, when they see a rose, can only count the thorns.
-
ekim,
No profundity intended, false or otherwise.
Not by you perhaps, but it is by those who assert themselves to be “spiritual”.
It is just a view of how some of those engaged in 'spirituality' appear to support that view. There are many people in many walks of life who claim special recognition, it often goes with egotism and attention seeking, something the 'spiritual' are supposed to eliminate or sacrifice. Words like 'woo' utter bollocks', 'rubbish' are often emotional reactions expressed by those who think they are being talked down to, which is understandable.
In part, but for me at least it’s more a response to the inability of those who claim it to explain or demonstrate it but continue to assert it anyway (while telling the rest of us that we’re too lost in “microscopic thinking” or some such to grasp why they’re right). “Spiritual” actually seems to mean something like “tending to a strong emotional response to certain stimuli” but that’s never been unavailable to those who actually bother to understand those stimuli too.
A garden is no less beautiful to someone who also knows about spirituality but there are some who, when they see a rose, can only count the thorns.
Who are those people? Something about the scientists and people of reason I admire most is that the best of them seem to me filled with a sense of wonder about the universe even as they go about investigating it.
-
No profundity intended, false or otherwise. It is just a view of how some of those engaged in 'spirituality'
What does 'engaged in spirituality' mean, do you think?
, something the 'spiritual' are supposed to eliminate or sacrifice.
Who are these people, 'the spirituall'?
A garden is no less beautiful to someone who also knows about spirituality
And again here is this word spirituality. How does anyone 'know about spirituality'? Who are those who think they do and that others don't?
-
What does 'engaged in spirituality' mean, do you think? Who are these people, 'the spirituall'?And again here is this word spirituality. How does anyone 'know about spirituality'? Who are those who think they do and that others don't?
Firstly you should understand that what I say about this topic is what I think. Other versions by other people are available. As I tried to indicate in my previous post 'spirit' is a symbolic word intended to represent that which is believed to be within life forms and which is non physical and perhaps changeless and formless and therefor ineffable. 'Engaged in spirituality' would mean following an inner path, way or method said to facilitate the realisation of that belief as the truth or otherwise. In this context, to know it is by consciously being it rather than thinking about it or conceptualising it. 'The spiritual' are those who follow such an 'inner path' as opposed to 'the religious' who follow a set doctrine. Those who claim to know are probably more associated with the mystics and heretics rather than religious hierarchies and cant.
-
Firstly you should understand that what I say about this topic is what I think. Other versions by other people are available. As I tried to indicate in my previous post 'spirit' is a symbolic word intended to represent that which is believed to be within life forms and which is non physical and perhaps changeless and formless and therefor ineffable. 'Engaged in spirituality' would mean following an inner path, way or method said to facilitate the realisation of that belief as the truth or otherwise. In this context, to know it is by consciously being it rather than thinking about it or conceptualising it. 'The spiritual' are those who follow such an 'inner path' as opposed to 'the religious' who follow a set doctrine. Those who claim to know are probably more associated with the mystics and heretics rather than religious hierarchies and cant.
Interesting - thank you. How do you think atheists fit in here?!
-
Firstly you should understand that what I say about this topic is what I think. Other versions by other people are available. As I tried to indicate in my previous post 'spirit' is a symbolic word intended to represent that which is believed to be within life forms and which is non physical and perhaps changeless and formless and therefor ineffable. 'Engaged in spirituality' would mean following an inner path, way or method said to facilitate the realisation of that belief as the truth or otherwise. In this context, to know it is by consciously being it rather than thinking about it or conceptualising it. 'The spiritual' are those who follow such an 'inner path' as opposed to 'the religious' who follow a set doctrine. Those who claim to know are probably more associated with the mystics and heretics rather than religious hierarchies and cant.
flippin' 'eck ! the last word of the paragraph stunned me for a moment there!!!
-
Interesting - thank you. How do you think atheists fit in here?!
If the intension is to test out the inner methods, which are often of the nature of meditation and/or devotion, this could be done without using religious terms like soul, spirit, god which are often so vague and nebulous anyway. The expression 'well being' could be used if needed, as, perhaps, it invites the idea that it can arise from within rather than being dependant upon seeking its source in the outer world.
If the intension is to discuss theism, then I would suggest the ignostic approach, because unless somebody is clear about their meaning of God the discussions will be confused and circular. For what it is worth, my view of the word 'God' comes from its origin as 'that which is to be invoked'. I suspect that there were many gods because there were many circumstances or qualities which people had no control over and which they wanted to invoke or placate, so there were gods of love, luck, power, peace etc. This probably became too much to manage, so one God came about with all the required qualities. In the Qu'ran, for instance, there are 99 names of God but they are all really attributes.
-
flippin' 'eck ! the last word of the paragraph stunned me for a moment there!!!
It must be your Yorkshire accent. ;)
-
It must be your Yorkshire accent. ;)
actually ekim , it's spelt like a cockney would pronounce it . It certainly doesn't sound like that when a Yorkshireman says it ;D
-
ekim,
If the intension is to test out the inner methods, which are often of the nature of meditation and/or devotion, this could be done without using religious terms like soul, spirit, god which are often so vague and nebulous anyway. The expression 'well being' could be used if needed, as, perhaps, it invites the idea that it can arise from within rather than being dependant upon seeking its source in the outer world.
But not if you want to attach the word “spiritual” to whatever techniques you want to use to improve wellbeing. As I understand it, those who use that word often think it to refer to something non-natural, working outside of the laws of physics and chemistry etc. In other words, for them “spiritual” is in the same category as “god”, “soul” etc.
If the intension is to discuss theism, then I would suggest the ignostic approach, because unless somebody is clear about their meaning of God the discussions will be confused and circular. For what it is worth, my view of the word 'God' comes from its origin as 'that which is to be invoked'. I suspect that there were many gods because there were many circumstances or qualities which people had no control over and which they wanted to invoke or placate, so there were gods of love, luck, power, peace etc. This probably became too much to manage, so one God came about with all the required qualities. In the Qu'ran, for instance, there are 99 names of God but they are all really attributes.
By the same token, perhaps the proper response to claims of spirituality is ig-spirituality – ie, “when you say you’re spiritual I have no idea what you mean but that, and nor it seems have you”.
-
flippin' 'eck ! the last word of the paragraph stunned me for a moment there!!!
Have you not studied the venerable Kunt?
-
DU,
Have you not studied the venerable Kunt?
Or sung the innumerable uplifting hymns composed by Fanny Crosby?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Crosby
-
DU,
Or sung the innumerable uplifting hymns composed by Fanny Crosby?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Crosby
you can't beat a bit of Fanny!
-
Walter,
you can't beat a bit of Fanny!
Reminds me of the late Fanny Craddock and her cookery programmes. Husband Johnny got quietly tanked in the background, but he always got the sign-off line...
...one of which was the never to be be forgotten, "Well thank you for joining us everyone, and may all your fairy cakes taste just like Fanny's". :o
-
Walter,
Reminds me of the late Fanny Craddock and her cookery programmes. Husband Johnny got quietly tanked in the background, but he always got the sign-off line...
...one of which was the never to be be forgotten, "Well thank you for joining us everyone, and may all your fairy cakes taste like Fanny's". :o
aww c'mon you just made that up . Brilliant !
-
Walter,
aww c'mon you just made that up . Brilliant !
Nope. Rumour was it did the rounds at BBC staff Christmas parties for years afterwards!
-
ekim,
(1) But not if you want to attach the word “spiritual” to whatever techniques you want to use to improve wellbeing. As I understand it, those who use that word often think it to refer to something non-natural, working outside of the laws of physics and chemistry etc. In other words, for them “spiritual” is in the same category as “god”, “soul” etc.
(2) By the same token, perhaps the proper response to claims of spirituality is ig-spirituality – ie, “when you say you’re spiritual I have no idea what you mean but that, and nor it seems have you”.
(1)Yes, I was answering Susan's question - 'How do you think atheists fit in here?' and I wouldn't expect atheists to attach the words 'spiritual, gods and souls' to any techniques to improve their well being. A person who considers herself to be 'spiritual' might use appropriate symbolic language to fit in with whatever 'religious' structure she is attached to.
(2) I agree. The expressions used should be defined as well as possible by the person using them. One of the problems that Sriram is coming up against is that he is trying to use Abrahamic religious terminology to fit with Indian philosophical ideas and I don't think it works. It would be better to use the language of e.g. Samkhya metaphysics, much of which has a resemblance to western psychology and has a better chance of being explained. It might save the confusion between physics and metaphysics. Sriram seems to be the last 'spiritual' survival. If he is hounded off the board you'll be left with crossword puzzles, Donald Trump, Brexit and football it seems.
-
Walter,
Nope. Rumour was it did the rounds at BBC staff Christmas parties for years afterwards!
It doesn't matter though , it's a brilliant gag anyway . I saw it mentioned on one of those 'Looking Back ' programs about how the BBC has presented cooking shows through time . I almost spat my whisky out laughing (ALMOST)
-
(1)Yes, I was answering Susan's question - 'How do you think atheists fit in here?' and I wouldn't expect atheists to attach the words 'spiritual, gods and souls' to any techniques to improve their well being. A person who considers herself to be 'spiritual' might use appropriate symbolic language to fit in with whatever 'religious' structure she is attached to.
(2) I agree. The expressions used should be defined as well as possible by the person using them. One of the problems that Sriram is coming up against is that he is trying to use Abrahamic religious terminology to fit with Indian philosophical ideas and I don't think it works. It would be better to use the language of e.g. Samkhya metaphysics, much of which has a resemblance to western psychology and has a better chance of being explained. It might save the confusion between physics and metaphysics. Sriram seems to be the last 'spiritual' survival. If he is hounded off the board you'll be left with crossword puzzles, Donald Trump, Brexit and football it seems.
Hey! we like a good hounding on 'ere . It's good for the soul .
-
Hey! we like a good hounding on 'ere . It's good for the soul .
That's what Donald Trump is for. He goes down bigly in Barnsley.
-
That's what Donald Trump is for. He goes down bigly in Barnsley.
I think Bigly likes it though :o
-
has this thread come off the rails yet or can it stand a bit more ? ;)
-
I think Bigly likes it though :o
Walter, King of the Double Entendres. I can see I'll have to carefully edit what I put in my posts. :-[
-
ekim,
Walter, King of the Double Entendres. I can see I'll have to carefully edit what I put in my posts. :-[
Doncha just wish Walter's surname was "Wallcarpet" too?
Even missing capital letters can matter a lot by the way. "My uncle Jack's off his horse" is fine; "my uncle jacks off his horse" is, well, less so...
-
(1)Yes, I was answering Susan's question - 'How do you think atheists fit in here?' and I wouldn't expect atheists to attach the words 'spiritual, gods and souls' to any techniques to improve their well being. A person who considers herself to be 'spiritual' might use appropriate symbolic language to fit in with whatever 'religious' structure she is attached to.
(2) I agree. The expressions used should be defined as well as possible by the person using them. One of the problems that Sriram is coming up against is that he is trying to use Abrahamic religious terminology to fit with Indian philosophical ideas and I don't think it works. It would be better to use the language of e.g. Samkhya metaphysics, much of which has a resemblance to western psychology and has a better chance of being explained. It might save the confusion between physics and metaphysics. Sriram seems to be the last 'spiritual' survival. If he is hounded off the board you'll be left with crossword puzzles, Donald Trump, Brexit and football it seems.
Well...I think any secular principle or philosophy that is meant to explain the life and patterns of all humans, should be amenable to any language or terminology. Only religious ideas that have a strong cultural base might be difficult to explain.
Anyway...as you say...maybe this board would be more comfortable discussing crossword puzzles, Brexit, Trump etc.
-
Sriram,
Well...I think any secular principle or philosophy that is meant to explain the life and patterns of all humans, should be amenable to any language or terminology. Only religious ideas that have a strong cultural base might be difficult to explain.
Of course philosophy can’t be “amenable to any language or terminology”! Philosophy requires certainty of meaning, clarity of thought, robust reasoning etc. That’s why your claims to be “doing philosophy” fall at the first hurdle – woolly platitudes cannot philosophy be, no matter how much you would prefer it otherwise.
Anyway...as you say...maybe this board would be more comfortable discussing crossword puzzles, Brexit, Trump etc.
Relax – the children were just messing around while we waited for you to come back with some straight answers. Seems we’re gonna have to wait a bit longer though…
-
Well...I think any secular principle or philosophy that is meant to explain the life and patterns of all humans, should be amenable to any language or terminology. Only religious ideas that have a strong cultural base might be difficult to explain.
Anyway...as you say...maybe this board would be more comfortable discussing crossword puzzles, Brexit, Trump etc.
-
what happened there , my post didn't appear ?
-
(1)Yes, I was answering Susan's question - 'How do you think atheists fit in here?' and I wouldn't expect atheists to attach the words 'spiritual, gods and souls' to any techniques to improve their well being
I don't think I saw that in previous posts, but never mind, I shall have to respond to that!
I shall use the word spiritual about myself whenever it applies, since that is part of my plan to fight the appropriation of the word by the religious every inch of the way.
A person who considers herself to be 'spiritual' might use appropriate symbolic language to fit in with whatever 'religious' structure she is attached to.
I don't just 'consider' myself to be a spiritualperson, I am absolutely colnfident that I am, since, unless you can convince otherwise, the word spiritual applies to the general, aesthetic aspects of life, not exclusively to the faith belief aspect.
-
I don't think I saw that in previous posts, but never mind, I shall have to respond to that!
I shall use the word spiritual about myself whenever it applies, since that is part of my plan to fight the appropriation of the word by the religious every inch of the way.I don't just 'consider' myself to be a spiritualperson, I am absolutely colnfident that I am, since, unless you can convince otherwise, the word spiritual applies to the general, aesthetic aspects of life, not exclusively to the faith belief aspect.
In a discussion group, I think it is important to be as clear as possible about certain words which have their origins in religions to avoid confusion rather than preserve exclusivity. A person who goes to a Spiritualist Church as a medium and contacts the dead would see it differently to you and me as would a person only interested in soul music. Words do change meaning over time but if we are as clear as possible about what we mean then it will save us saying things like 'my god, what the devil do you mean by that'.
-
Hi Susan,
I don't think I saw that in previous posts, but never mind, I shall have to respond to that!
I shall use the word spiritual about myself whenever it applies, since that is part of my plan to fight the appropriation of the word by the religious every inch of the way.
I don't just 'consider' myself to be a spiritualperson, I am absolutely colnfident that I am, since, unless you can convince otherwise, the word spiritual applies to the general, aesthetic aspects of life, not exclusively to the faith belief aspect.
Reminds me a bit of the old story about the uneducated chap who comes into money and decides to learn formal English. He visits a tutor, who says “let’s begin with learning prose”. “Prose” says our man, “what’s that?” “Well” says the tutor, “prose is what you’re speaking now”. “Wow” says our chap, “you mean to say I’ve been here for only five minutes and already I’ve learnt prose? You Sir are a genius!”
So it turns out that just by trying to behave well and do the right thing I’ve been “spiritual” all along eh? Well, just fancy that!
-
...
So it turns out that just by trying to behave well and do the right thing I’ve been “spiritual” all along eh? Well, just fancy that!
Well, along the lines of, I think, your earlier comments, "considerate" or "polite" and "ethical" would cover those fine. If "spiritual" has a meaning it needs to be defined more clearly than that.
-
It's a sort of catch all term. I've never understood it, and it seems to me that SD's approach is simply using it as a synonym for aesthetic, which doesn't seem to match other uses here.
-
Udayana,
Well, along the lines of, I think, your earlier comments, "considerate" or "polite" and "ethical" would cover those fine. If "spiritual" has a meaning it needs to be defined more clearly than that.
Not by me though - I was just going by ekim's use of "wellbeing" and similar - apparently the term is so loose-woven you can use it to mean pretty much anything you think to be positive. Me, I'm having a big ol' badge made saying "I'm spiritual I am!", and I'll wear it with pride too!
...or perhaps not.
Which reminds me of many years ago on one of my children's fourth birthdays when she was given a card with a big badge on it saying "I am 4!". On the back of it though was a sticker saying, "Not suitable for children under six". Happy days eh?
-
Hi Susan,
Reminds me a bit of the old story about the uneducated chap who comes into money and decides to learn formal English. He visits a tutor, who says “let’s begin with learning prose”. “Prose” says our man, “what’s that?” “Well” says the tutor, “prose is what you’re speaking now”. “Wow” says our chap, “you mean to say I’ve been here for only five minutes and already I’ve learnt prose? You Sir are a genius!”
So it turns out that just by trying to behave well and do the right thing I’ve been “spiritual” all along eh? Well, just fancy that!
Ten minutes ago I was on the GH forum, countering some more use of the word 'spirituality' and saw the name Eckhart Toll. took a few minutes only to look him up on Wikipedia, shake head sadly, and sigh! :)
-
Ten minutes ago I was on the GH forum, countering some more use of the word 'spirituality' and saw the name Eckhart Toll. took a few minutes only to look him up on Wikipedia, shake head sadly, and sigh! :)
hi SD
It would appear even wakos can get into top universities !
But it's "ordinary people " who validate his tripe by listening to him and buying his books .
There's nowt so queer as folks !!!
-
hi SD
It would appear even wakos can get into top universities !
But it's "ordinary people " who validate his tripe by listening to him and buying his books .
There's nowt so queer as folks !!!
In which case wouldn't it be better to remove the word 'religion' from the title of this site. This might make it less attractive to the 'ordinary people' so that the 'special people' on here will be spared shaking their head sadly and sighing or shouting out tripe, woo, rubbish, wakos and such like every so often. This site has probably passed its use by date, as the same discussions have been frequently repeated since the BBC days.
-
In which case wouldn't it be better to remove the word 'religion' from the title of this site. This might make it less attractive to the 'ordinary people' so that the 'special people' on here will be spared shaking their head sadly and sighing or shouting out tripe, woo, rubbish, wakos and such like every so often. This site has probably passed its use by date, as the same discussions have been frequently repeated since the BBC days.
…..and where's the fun in that?
-
…..and where's the fun in that?
Surely you can find more fun in crossword puzzles, football, the ancient Egyptian Dead. What's wrong with you man!!
-
Surely you can find more fun in crossword puzzles, football, the ancient Egyptian Dead. What's wrong with you man!!
you're not the first to ask that question of me , ekim .
My reply is ;
ask not what is wrong with me but what is wrong with oneself !
-
It's a sort of catch all term. I've never understood it, and it seems to me that SD's approach is simply using it as a synonym for aesthetic, which doesn't seem to match other uses here.
As a catch all, it is just used to indicate concern with the mental, philosophical or mythical world as opposed to the material, physical, commercial and so on.
Whether or not you divide things into things perceived through the senses (physical) or the mind (spiritual) or not is itself a philosophical position, is it not?
Anyway, anyone describing themselves as spiritual and others as not (does anyone claim this?) is clearly full of hot air.
-
you're not the first to ask that question of me , ekim .
My reply is ;
ask not what is wrong with me but what is wrong with oneself !
Oh, a member of royalty, eh? OK, what is wrong with oneself then? :)
-
Ten minutes ago I was on the GH forum, countering some more use of the word 'spirituality' and saw the name Eckhart Toll. took a few minutes only to look him up on Wikipedia, shake head sadly, and sigh! :)
I was thinking Susan, if I had some of the ideas you have about spirituality, I wouldn't let them haunt me.
Regards ippy
-
I was thinking Susan, if I had some of the ideas you have about spirituality, I wouldn't let them haunt me.
Regards ippy
Wel, now, I can't possibly let that enigmatic comment pass without a request, nay, a demand, for elaboration! :)
Pause to consider: Do I have any 'ideas' on spirituality? Yes, but not one needs anything supernatural.
Do I object to the misappropriation of the word and a claim to exclusivity by religious groups? Most decidedly, yes!
-
Wel, now, I can't possibly let that enigmatic comment pass without a request, nay, a demand, for elaboration! :)
Pause to consider: Do I have any 'ideas' on spirituality? Yes, but not one needs anything supernatural.
Do I object to the misappropriation of the word and a claim to exclusivity by religious groups? Most decidedly, yes!
Just as I really worry about those that don't take 'Star Trek' seriously, as I'm sure you do too.
Regards ippy