Secular Spirituality

[Outrider]

The point I am making is that there are domains at various levels that behave almost as separate worlds.....though they are obviously connected and overlap.   We can broadly classify them as Physics, chemistry, biology, psychology...and so on.    We can go further into the subatomic world and talk of  elementary particles as a separate quantum domain...then maybe Strings.  Beyond psychology, we can talk of mind as one domain, Consciousness as another. 

All these, though interconnected, cannot be reduced into the earlier domains or understood in those terms.  There are properties at each level that cannot be explained through pure reductionism.

Ok, I see that - there are more than a few people who criticise the inclusion of psychology (and other social sciences) in any list of sciences, suggesting that nothing within it can be measured, all you can hope to do is make statistical judgements on outcomes - whether that constitutes science or not, I suppose, is a judgement call of its own.

However, 'beyond' psychology, what is there to interpret or measure or assess or analyse?  There's a claim of something 'spiritual' but nothing demonstrable as even an effect of it to be accepted, let alone assessed in any way.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

It's probably also worth reflecting that whilst it is indeed the space within that makes a pot useful, that space is only useful because it is contained by the pot!

But of course the space itself is not needed if it contains 'no-tea' (as Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki would say)

Okay, let me 'clarify':

My Tea is No-Tea, which is not no-Tea in opposition to Tea. What then is this No-tea? When a man enters the exquisite realm of No-tea, he will realise that No-tea is no other than the Great Way itself

Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki

I kid you not.

[Nearly Sane]

But of course the space itself is not needed if it contains 'no-tea' (as Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki would say)

Okay, let me 'clarify':
Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki

I kid you not.

That may be the definition of deepitea.

[ekim]

(1) Experience can have subjective value, I don't deny that, but to eschew 'thinking' in favour of accepting our limited sensory capabilities and even more limited intrinsic conceptualisations is to limit our capacity to understand, not to expand it.

 (2) Transformation into what?  It is not the process of information gathering that is driving a means of destruction - indeed, it is invariably the sort of 'emotional' expressor who decries the scientific community and there masses of evidence on the scale of the destruction in favour of chasing, say, self-actualisation through accumulation of wealth.

If the only concept of 'spirit' that's possible is a subjective one that encompasses ecstasy, bliss and the like, then I don't need spirituality, those are elements of the entirely physical life I already have.  Those are states of mind which, so far as we can tell, correlate with particular patterns of brain activity in particular areas of the brain.

(3) If the 'space' is filled with metal, or plastic, or wood, though, the wheel works fine, a filled pot isn't useless as a pot, it's simply not a pot, likewise a house with no inside is not a house, it's a sculpture of a house.  This isn't 'deep', this isn't 'wisdom', it's truthiness.

O.

(1)  There is nothing in what I said which suggests that.  You agree that experience can have a subjective value but this does not mean that one has to eschew thinking.  It's not an either/or situation, it's a both/and situation i.e. the inner value of joy can be experienced even when thinking is in process.

(2) "Transformation into what?"  I think you have answered your own question.  It's a transformation from or transcendence of what I have phrased as individual egocentricity and you have phrased 'self actualisation' i.e. egocentric and self centred are much the same.  It's not so much that 'spirit' is defined by those qualities you mention but is more, said to be, a place marker for their inner  source.  If your materialistic life provides all that your brain patterns  need, then long may it continue.  I doubt whether anybody would waste time persuading otherwise.

(3)  Well, I won't spend anymore time on trying to explain Lao Tse's verse.  It was probably written some 500 years BCE and was not meant to be 'deep' or 'wisdom' as I believe he saw simplicity as a virtue and it was only intended as an analogy to help those of his time who lacked a materialistic lifestyle, and whose heads weren't filled with the wonders of Wikipedia.

[ekim]

I was intrigued by your translation of this chapter. I've read many translations and commentaries over the years but never one that explicitly refers to the space here as representing inner being or spirit:

This seems to suggest that inner being is somehow opposed to 'existence' which would be very odd and not very Daoist, I think. Usually, the sense is rendered something more like this:

which is more in keeping with Daoism's emphasis on the usefulness of absence (as in doing by not-doing wu-wei) or what is normally considered useless (as in the 'useless tree' of Zhuangzi's Inner Chapters).

Anyway, it's an interesting take, whether it's what was originally meant or not.

It's probably also worth reflecting that whilst it is indeed the space within that makes a pot useful, that space is only useful because it is contained by the pot!

Shhh!  You've caught me out.  It was about 40 years ago when I looked at the Tao Te Ching and the only one that seemed available was the Richard Wilhelm translation.  I decided to create my own version according to my own understanding, rightly or wrongly.  I was not a Daoist but more on a mission to discover what was behind a variety of religions and to try to discover a common thread.  I would probably be classed as a heretic by all of them.  So don't tell anyone!

[Bramble]

Shhh!  You've caught me out.  It was about 40 years ago when I looked at the Tao Te Ching and the only one that seemed available was the Richard Wilhelm translation.  I decided to create my own version according to my own understanding, rightly or wrongly.  I was not a Daoist but more on a mission to discover what was behind a variety of religions and to try to discover a common thread.  I would probably be classed as a heretic by all of them.  So don't tell anyone!

That must have been quite a project and I'm sure you learnt a lot from it. Thomas Merton did something similar with the Zhuangzi (parts of it anyway) by using 5 separate translations (he couldn't read Chinese himself). I've sometimes wondered about writing a children's story based on some of the passages in the Inner Chapters - they have so many layers of meaning and are often very amusing - but I'm probably too lazy so it'll likely remain a fantasy.

[ekim]

That must have been quite a project and I'm sure you learnt a lot from it. Thomas Merton did something similar with the Zhuangzi (parts of it anyway) by using 5 separate translations (he couldn't read Chinese himself). I've sometimes wondered about writing a children's story based on some of the passages in the Inner Chapters - they have so many layers of meaning and are often very amusing - but I'm probably too lazy so it'll likely remain a fantasy.

Have a go.  You'll probably find out a lot about yourself  as well.

[Sriram]

Ok, I see that - there are more than a few people who criticise the inclusion of psychology (and other social sciences) in any list of sciences, suggesting that nothing within it can be measured, all you can hope to do is make statistical judgements on outcomes - whether that constitutes science or not, I suppose, is a judgement call of its own.

However, 'beyond' psychology, what is there to interpret or measure or assess or analyse?  There's a claim of something 'spiritual' but nothing demonstrable as even an effect of it to be accepted, let alone assessed in any way.

O.

Outrider,

See my point?!  If even psychology cannot be called science what to say of Consciousness and after-life etc?!  But that does not mean that the mind does not exist or that psychology does not have its patterns. Just that they could be beyond current investigative methodologies.

All the more reason to expand the scope of science and define it more broadly.

What is beyond psychology is the Self. The real You!  Ceasing to identify with the body...then the mind... emotions...and intellect ...and to recognize the real you beyond all this. That is what spirituality is all about. 

[torridon]

All the more reason to expand the scope of science and define it more broadly.

What is beyond psychology is the Self. The real You!  Ceasing to identify with the body...then the mind... emotions...and intellect ...and to recognize the real you beyond all this. That is what spirituality is all about.

The above exemplifies good reason to not expand the scope of science; at least to me it looks like 'expanding the scope of science' equates to 'abandoning mental discipline and evidence based reasoning' in favour of unhinged speculation.

If there is a 'self' that is somehow 'beyond' the body and emotions and intellect how could it be defined ? What would be its properties, it qualities ?

[Sriram]

The above exemplifies good reason to not expand the scope of science; at least to me it looks like 'expanding the scope of science' equates to 'abandoning mental discipline and evidence based reasoning' in favour of unhinged speculation.

If there is a 'self' that is somehow 'beyond' the body and emotions and intellect how could it be defined ? What would be its properties, it qualities ?

If science cannot investigate psychology, that is a limitation of science not of our minds...for heavens sake...!!

You don't need to define the Self. That is what YOU are.

[Gordon]

See my point?!  If even psychology cannot be called science what to say of Consciousness and after-life etc?!

I worked with several psychologists during my career and I think they'd be surprised that their work was being compared to superstitious beliefs such as 'after-life'.

But that does not mean that the mind does not exist or that psychology does not have its patterns. Just that they could be beyond current investigative methodologies.

Yet these particular psychologists were specialists in behavioural therapies, sometimes referred to as CBT, and were informed by and contributed to the specialist knowledge involved - it was also the case that these psychologists were seen as making a relevant contribution by the other professionals involved (psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, police etc) so I suspect you may be undervaluing the 'science' aspect of what psychologists do. 

All the more reason to expand the scope of science and define it more broadly.

Not really - the scope of science may well expand but in a structured ways that build on reliable methods and knowledge and, of course, peer-review to ensure that established science doesn't drift into pseudoscience by incorporating aspects that are outwith the scope of science or are too ill-defined to be amenable to scientific study. 

What is beyond psychology is the Self. The real You!  Ceasing to identify with the body...then the mind... emotions...and intellect ...and to recognize the real you beyond all this. That is what spirituality is all about.

So you say - but 'it ain't science as we know it, Jim'.

[torridon]

If science cannot investigate psychology, that is a limitation of science not of our minds...for heavens sake...!!

You don't need to define the Self. That is what YOU are.

That skips rather lightly over the fact that the nature of identity has been debated in philosophy for many years.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/

What 'I' am is not an easy question to answer in any depth. Clearly there are simplistic answers but they tend not to capture the nature of constant change within an individual and if you contend that there is a 'real me' that is 'beyond' emotions, mind etc somehow, then what is it ? As far as I can see, if I subtract the body and all the thoughts and habits and predispositions and personal memories etc, then there will be nothing left by which to define me, nothing left that other people could recognise me by.

[Outrider]

See my point?!  If even psychology cannot be called science what to say of Consciousness and after-life etc?!  But that does not mean that the mind does not exist or that psychology does not have its patterns. Just that they could be beyond current investigative methodologies.

All the more reason to expand the scope of science and define it more broadly.

What is beyond psychology is the Self. The real You!  Ceasing to identify with the body...then the mind... emotions...and intellect ...and to recognize the real you beyond all this. That is what spirituality is all about.

Sorry, perhaps I should have been a little clearer, I didn't say that I personally feel that psychology isn't a science.  I do think that it's at the far reaches of what the scientific method can work with, and that any findings - even given the inherent provisional nature of scientific findings - needs to be seen as provisional.

The problem with psychology is that it's at the edge of what the scientific method can work with, currently, given the lack of depth of understanding we currently have of the component parts of what it's looking at.  We couldn't conduct advanced research on applications of lasers without Maxwell's basics of electromagnetism, and similarly we are hampered in our scientific understanding of the mind by our current lack of in depth knowledge of the mechanics of neurology.  The answer isn't to dispense with scientific enquiry or to water down scientific rigour, it's to be patient and realise that we're constantly learning about neurology, and those understandings will flow through.

We need to maintain the standards that have brought us this far, not abandon them because we'd feel more comfortable with an unjustifiable confidence than with a justified 'We're not quite sure just yet'.

O.

[Walter]

About 74% of PhDs in psychology are female
(American psych association )
Is that significant in some way ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

(1)  There is nothing in what I said which suggests that.  You agree that experience can have a subjective value but this does not mean that one has to eschew thinking.  It's not an either/or situation, it's a both/and situation i.e. the inner value of joy can be experienced even when thinking is in process.

The point here is that "personal experience" provides only beliefs, opinions. "My practices led to an immense sensation of oneness" is fine, but tagging "therefore Ra" to it isn't.

To the extent that individuals find sensations or altered mental states have value to them, well and good. Sriram's mistake though is to overreach - he jumps straight form beliefs ("aura", "biofield" etc) to a claim of knowledge ("therefore these things are objectively real"). And that fails because, absent some means to verify the belief, there's no logical path from one to the other. That is, Sriram cannot meaningfully claim knowledge when he has no means to know whether he actually has knowledge rather than just belief. 

To the extent that he tries to justify the leap from one to the other ("lots of other things that once weren't known about were discovered later on, therefore...errr..." etc) the effort always collapses immediately into vary bad reasoning.     

[Walter]

Hi blue
Although reading your well thought out responses on this thread is an interesting experience to me I'm intregued as to why you continue with it ?
It's a bit like trying to teach a one handed person to play a guitar . At some point one must realise the task is fruitless . There comes a time to walk away .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Walter,

Hi blue
Although reading your well thought out responses on this thread is an interesting experience to me I'm intregued as to why you continue with it ?
It's a bit like trying to teach a one handed person to play a guitar . At some point one must realise the task is fruitless . There comes a time to walk away .

You're probably right, but cock-eyed optimist that I am I still cling to the notion that one day he might wake up, have an unexpected rush of honesty, finally try at least to address the arguments that undo him and, when that fails, concede that all he has is unqualified beliefs (and some very poor thinking).

Probably not a good idea to bet more than 10p on that ever happening though I guess   

[ekim]

ekim,

The point here is that "personal experience" provides only beliefs, opinions. "My practices led to an immense sensation of oneness" is fine, but tagging "therefore Ra" to it isn't.

I'll leave you to take issue with what Sriram says, but to comment on what you say above,  I agree that it is unwise to tag any 'therefores' to personal inner experiences.  Even if two people had the same inner experience I am not sure how one could validate that as being identical, even more so if somebody declares union with Brahman.  Some yogis make  such declarations others like Buddha 'maintain a noble silence'.

[Nearly Sane]

I'll leave you to take issue with what Sriram says, but to comment on what you say above,  I agree that it is unwise to tag any 'therefores' to personal inner experiences.  Even if two people had the same inner experience I am not sure how one could validate that as being identical, even more so if somebody declares union with Brahman.  Some yogis make  such declarations others like Buddha 'maintain a noble silence'.

Yes, there is something quite odd about claiming inner experiences as the same. Even on a mundane level we get back by not looking too closely at the idea that anything we say about an experience may only sound similar to another person but could be entirely different.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I'll leave you to take issue with what Sriram says, but to comment on what you say above,  I agree that it is unwise to tag any 'therefores' to personal inner experiences.  Even if two people had the same inner experience I am not sure how one could validate that as being identical, even more so if somebody declares union with Brahman.  Some yogis make  such declarations others like Buddha 'maintain a noble silence'.

Well yes - "I experienced sensation X" is about as much as it's possible to say without some means to justify any casual explanation for "X" you might want to reach for. If someone claims a cause nonetheless, that's a belief but a belief is all it is.   

[Walter]

Hi Walter,

You're probably right, but cock-eyed optimist that I am I still cling to the notion that one day he might wake up, have an unexpected rush of honesty, finally try at least to address the arguments that undo him and, when that fails, concede that all he has is unqualified beliefs (and some very poor thinking).

Probably not a good idea to bet more than 10p on that ever happening though I guess 

blue,

What puzzles me is he appears to be a relatively intelligent bloke !
Maybe he's a proficient troll and lives in Safron Walden

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure if my view of this chimes with anything Sriram thinks as we seem to be completely different in how we might express things BUT while I don't think there is any useful thing in terms of 'spirituality', a term so wide and open to be worthless, I do struggle with the issue that for me nothing of real interest in how I should live comes from science. The main issues of my life are not why gravity, but what should I do. I wonder if there would be a more open approach on what Sriram is trying to say which is not about objectivity but a celebration of our subjectivity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I'm not sure if my view of this chimes with anything Sriram thinks as we seem to be completely different in how we might express things BUT while I don't think there is any useful thing in terms of 'spirituality', a term so wide and open to be worthless, I do struggle with the issue that for me nothing of real interest in how I should live comes from science. The main issues of my life are not why gravity, but what should I do. I wonder if there would be a more open approach on what Sriram is trying to say which is not about objectivity but a celebration of our subjectivity.

Well yes - "science" tells me very little about how to live a good life, except perhaps that accepting justifiable beliefs tends to lead to happier outcomes than living according to unjustifiable ones. Sriram though gets shot down because he goes way beyond that to make claims of objective fact about the world - that "auras" exist, that certain practices are clinically effective etc. This is science's turf - such claims should in principle at least be investigable (by double blind trials on supposed clinical efficacy for example) but he insists on eliding belief into knowledge about such claims with no justification at all.

In other words, he isn't celebrating subjectivity at all - rather he's trying to magic subjectivity into objectivity.           

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Well yes - "science" tells me very little about how to live a good life, except perhaps that accepting justifiable beliefs tends to lead to happier outcomes than living according to unjustifiable ones. Sriram though gets shot down because he goes way beyond that to make claims of objective fact about the world - that "auras" exist, that certain practices are clinically effective etc. This is science's turf - such claims should in principle at least be investigable (by double blind trials on supposed clinical efficacy for example) but he insists on eliding belief into knowledge about such claims with no justification at all.

In other words, he isn't celebrating subjectivity at all - rather he's trying to magic subjectivity into objectivity.         

I'm not suggesting Sriram is celebrating subjectivity. I'm just wondering if it might be a better general approach.  As with reverse Meat Loaf, and reverse argument by analogy that have cropped up in the last couple of days, there's a reverse need sometimes to make everything objective by people of many different views. It seems to me ultimately a bit of a sterile debate - it's the attitude that gibes rise to ID and 'creation science'. I'm mush more interested in the discussion between ekim and Bramble on the thread which seems both less tangible and more open.

[Walter]

I'm not sure if my view of this chimes with anything Sriram thinks as we seem to be completely different in how we might express things BUT while I don't think there is any useful thing in terms of 'spirituality', a term so wide and open to be worthless, I do struggle with the issue that for me nothing of real interest in how I should live comes from science. The main issues of my life are not why gravity, but what should I do. I wonder if there would be a more open approach on what Sriram is trying to say which is not about objectivity but a celebration of our subjectivity.

oddly enough I can agree in part with some of the sentement of your post .

Yesterday I had occasion to visit a "Complementary medicine " clinic (the only place I could find in an emergency) to fix a painful toe nail
The whole place was alien to me but she sure fixed my toe 👍