Are You Spiritual?

[Navigator]

OK, so I see how you are looking at using memes now.
That's a very interesting idea; I like that.

That’s great to hear JaysonR!

Using the aggregate to imply the construct of the specific.

Yes – that is always the first step. Eventually, whatever angle (Meme) you are approaching it from, implication evolves into certainty, which is specifically specific.

As such, that answers the "example" I was looking for outside of neurology.

That is good. I was ‘praying’ for something like that to happen.

Essentially, we can use sociology to aid in the culminating information regarding consciousness.

Human Consciousness as a whole thing, yes.

If that's mixed with neurology, then the mapping would be rather potent (which of course fits into the idea of cross-"school" working).

Yes – and the ‘cross school’ is another way of saying “Bridged Memes”
This implies that such an understanding can work as a useful tool in any
situation/study in which Consciousness is involved and occupied with, Memingful to many.

This is definitely something interesting to think about.
I'll have to look more into memes; you've sparked a curious interest in me, thanks!

Well, thanks for your part in the process. I can only lower the drawbridge of my floating fort (thought) and try to align it with any other lowered drawbridge in the vicinity. You thought to lower yours and thus very important data exchange occurred which otherwise wouldn't have.

In relation to Memes, what occurred here is that two different Memes exchanged interesting data, and if it is as important as I am claiming, the Meme you support with your life will notice it and work with it, mark my words if you want, but don’t be surprised where the path unwinds for you and yours, should you yourself allow the information its place of importance enough to maintain interest and let it show you were it fits with what you already know to be true.

 

[Pup]

HansMustermann appears to think the physical world is woop-de-doish so perhaps reading his whole post might assist you in probing the limits of that thought and attitude, because there certainly are limits to it.

Seems like you've misread HansMustermann's comment.

"Taking it back" wouldn't even solve anything, because when you remove that connection, you're left with an unneeded word that says you're like every other human. You have a human brain. You can experience awe, you can experience joy, you can be moved by certain patterns of sound or image, or humbled by stuff which is much larger than your mind comfortably wraps itself around, etc. Whop-de-do. So is everyone else. You don't need an adjective to say you're X, when there isn't anyone who isn't X.

The way I read it, he's saying that virtually everyone experiences awe, joy, etc. The things that cause those emotions are not "whop-de-do" by definition, because, well, they do cause people to feel awe, joy, etc.

The problem is people who brag about experiencing those emotions, as if feeling such things makes them unique and special. They're not superior human beings, no matter how much they claim to be. They're ordinary, normal human beings, because everyone experiences awe, joy, etc. "Whop-de-do" was a way of saying, "No one should think they're special for feeling awe and joy, because feeling those things is common."

Needless to say, HansMustermann can explain if I read it anywhere near correctly, but I interpreted the phrase quite differently than you did.

In fact, it seems you're projecting onto his post the same thing you keep claiming: that skeptics don't feel the awe and wonder you do. I read his post to claim just the opposite: skeptics do feel those things, but the difference is they acknowledge that everyone else does to, so they don't need a word to define how special they are, because they're not special.

 

[Navigator]

Hi Pup

You are not correct.

I was merely pointing out that the expression came into the thread through HansMustermann comment which got me thinking about how there are those who think about life through 'whop-de-do' agents rather than woowoo ones, and that it appeared Hans was one such type.

I projected nothing onto HansMustermann nor are your comments accurate regarding my claiming that skeptics don't feel the awe and wonder that I do.

I have made no such claims. I have pointed out that within the Skeptic Meme there is a branch of supporters of said Meme which do exhibit 'whop-de-do' expressions.

Just a branch, not the whole Meme.

Seems like you've misread me.

Edit: In fairness to most Meme, there will always be sects within these which display attitudes which don't reflect the attitudes of the holistic (overall) nature of the Meme...mostly it is tolerated, because a Meme cannot pick and choose those who claim to be of it, and in support of it.
To someone observing such Meme, this might be confusing and depending on the reason of those observing said Meme(s) might be mistaken or otherwise used to 'paint the whole meme with the same brush' so to speak.

 

[JaysonR]

There's a difference, though, Pup.

Everyone does experience these emotions, but spiritual practices aim to immerse into these emotional experiences and tie them into a conceptual paradigm that aids in some fashion of psychological and philosophical outlook ontologically.

Spiritual practices and religions are saturated with methods and means for evoking these sensations, rather than only experiencing them as they happen causally.

Separate from this consideration, the other consideration is that there is a difference in the application of importance and reverence.
Someone may experience all of the emotions, but the context may itself be of no great value in and of itself.
However, some contexts for some folks changes the value of these emotions and creates a tie of reverence to the experience that generated the emotions.
Whether that is the cosmos the first time a kid looks into a telescope and is so overwhelmed with emotion that the kid must become an astronomer, or whether it is a person who is so overwhelming in emotional experience that the person sensing must devote their life to this person they feel so strongly for, or whether it's any other variation of such.

"Spiritual", as a term, has a functional application in conveying reverence and behavior.

For some, it is only reverence.
For others, it also includes behavioral outlines that pursue evoking those emotions which fulfill the application of reverence repeatedly.

 

[jakesteele]

Are you saying that religious people don't do those things?

No.

 

[jakesteele]

As much as I disagree with the statement from the poster who said spirituality is the last refuge of a failed human, I think your rebuttal falls into the appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it true (or false). Popularity has zero bearing on validity.

I am not saying that popularity equates to being right or wrong, I am pointing out the irony of a young man who
who makes a grand, sweeping generalisation that encompasses 90% or more of the human race and is basically saying, "I'm right and if you don't agree with me, then you are wrong. You failed as a human."

Just a tad too much hubris for me.

Believers often do these things too. I'm not saying that makes it right or justifies doing it yourself. Bifurcation, absolutes, and labeling are signs of bigotry, regardless of which side they're on.

Couldn't agree more with you.

 

[Pup]

Hi Pup

You are not correct.

I was merely pointing out that the expression came into the thread through HansMustermann comment which got me thinking about how there are those who think about life through 'whop-de-do' agents rather than woowoo ones, and that it appeared Hans was one such type.

I projected nothing onto HansMustermann nor are your comments accurate regarding my claiming that skeptics don't feel the awe and wonder that I do.

You said "HansMustermann appears to think the physical world is woop-de-doish."

His post doesn't say that. In fact, his post points out that the human brain responds with awe and joy to the physical world.

Edited to add: I'm making the assumption, of course, that HansMustermann considers himself to have a human brain too.

 

[Pup]

There's a difference, though, Pup.

I difference between what?

Everyone does experience these emotions, but spiritual practices aim to immerse into these emotional experiences and tie them into a conceptual paradigm that aids in some fashion of psychological and philosophical outlook ontologically.

Okay... so?

Whether that is the cosmos the first time a kid looks into a telescope and is so overwhelmed with emotion that the kid must become an astronomer, or whether it is a person who is so overwhelming in emotional experience that the person sensing must devote their life to this person they feel so strongly for, or whether it's any other variation of such.

But that kid doesn't need a conceptual framework to teach him that those emotions should make him want to be an astronmer. He just knows his purpose in life, and goes for it.

All the other stuff is interesting for those who are into that kind of thing, but not necessary to make use of the emotions that people label as "spiritual."

 

[JaysonR]

It's not just the emotions that the label of "spiritual" refers to.
It's also the interaction and behavior of the individual to the state of those emotions.

Reaching the emotional states itself becomes reverent.

That is why I stated two conditions and gave examples of both, and then stated that some are just referring to the emotional sensation of an experience like the kid and as such are just simply speaking in the vernacular, but the other side of the table are those who aim to evoke the emotions and reside in those states.

That's unique in behavior, and does need a means of identifying that behavior.
"Spiritual" serves this role in our language.
It can either be a vernacular expression of magnitude and reverence, or it can refer to the motive to evoke the states of emotion for specific ontological use.

 

[Navigator]

You said "HansMustermann appears to think the physical world is woop-de-doish."

His post doesn't say that. In fact, his post points out that the human brain responds with awe and joy to the physical world.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9335787&postcount=71
There is the link to his post which gives a better overall 'feel' to what he was expressing, and why it was 'okay' for me to comment that he 'appears' to think the physical world is no more than something to say 'whop-de-do-' about...which is what i meant, not that the world is woop-de-do-ish, but that he (and others) appear to have that attitude.

I simply took that term as a good example of the attitude of some who are quite vocally opposed to wooism, and the only reason Han's post came up was to show where that expression first came into the thread, because tsig claimed that I seemed to view the world as Whop-de-doish...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9344830&postcount=138
...and wanted to probe the limits of that thought.

So I posted that I did not myself view the world in this way, and that the expression was first brought into the thread by Hans.

Then you popped along voicing concern I was misreading Hans.

To be fair on me though, I cannot truthfully be accused or even said to appear to be viewing this world as nothing more than 'whop-de-do' in regards to my posts in this thread.
Either some are purposefully misrepresenting what I am saying and protesting to deflect the thread from its present course, or it is a simply matter of confusion which intelligent thoughtfulness will fix.

 

[Navigator]

It's not just the emotions that the label of "spiritual" refers to.
It's also the interaction and behavior of the individual to the state of those emotions.

Reaching the emotional states itself becomes reverent.

That is why I stated two conditions and gave examples of both, and then stated that some are just referring to the emotional sensation of an experience like the kid and as such are just simply speaking in the vernacular, but the other side of the table are those who aim to evoke the emotions and reside in those states.

That's unique in behavior, and does need a means of identifying that behavior.
"Spiritual" serves this role in our language.
It can either be a vernacular expression of magnitude and reverence, or it can refer to the motive to evoke the states of emotion for specific ontological use.

I recently suggested that 'concern' might be something to focus on in relation to the various emotions, including awe...awe being partly the reason for concern...

There doesn't seem to be a useful word to replace "spiritual" to better understand what it actually is, but there does seem to be a need to clean away unhelpful residue associated with the word.

It is obvious that some don't mind using it in relation to their personality even that they don't consider themselves in any way religious or believe in any deities etc while others would not consider themselves spiritual because they are not in any way believers in religion and don't like the association the word implies, and then there are those who can be and sometimes are recognized as being ...'just as spiritual' as those who claim to be spiritual - and maybe even more so, who don't believe in deities and religious things etc but there is no 'word' for those people to adopt which gives anyone the same impression as to their nature without the religious (etc) residue associated with it.

Still, there are definite emotions and other things which altogether go to make up 'what is spiritual' which are not in anyway restricted to just religious practices.

I do agree though that it is a state of being and perpetual at that. Well potentially so - it still requires effort.

The word reverence is also something which can be associated with religion.

I was thinking that as Human Consciousness evolved, it was simply necessary to invent things like gods and angels and devils and what have you as part of the journey into self realization and identity and that as such, religion played its role and invented words to describe these states and the actual states can transcend gods and devils and such and still have relevance as part of individual and species self identity

 

[Pup]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9335787&postcount=71
There is the link to his post which gives a better overall 'feel' to what he was expressing, and why it was 'okay' for me to comment that he 'appears' to think the physical world is no more than something to say 'whop-de-do-' about...which is what i meant, not that the world is woop-de-do-ish, but that he (and others) appear to have that attitude.

I read his entire post earlier, and I still don't see it. The way I understood it, he's saying that everyone feels awe, but the important thing is what they feel awe about, and that feeling awe about real stuff, like the physical world, is better than feeling awe about made-up stuff, like religion. See his post #62.

Claiming that others are "whop-de-do" about the real world is a straw man you seem to like, though. I'm bringing this in from another thread, because it seems off topic to continue the discussion there, but on-topic here:

This is similar to anyone observing some skeptics who might display whop-de-do attitudes about Human Consciousness and our place in the universe as being 'of no importance' and marginalizing an amazingly awesome thing with nothing more than a wave of the hand and a 'ho hum' demeanour and then deciding on that observation that every skeptic must share the same attitude.

It's possible for a skeptic to feel awe at the physical world and humanity, while still acknowledging that, objectively speaking, our part in the universe is insignificant, and that consciousness is no more special than many other things.

While there are surely some skeptics who do feel as you describe, it's a pretty common insult used by believers and other "spiritual" people toward anyone who doesn't agree with them: you're close-minded, you have no imagination, you don't feel anything because you're too negative, etc.

It makes me think you're more interested in building the same straw man to tear down, rather than listening to what skeptics are actually saying.

 

[tsig]

I read his entire post earlier, and I still don't see it. The way I understood it, he's saying that everyone feels awe, but the important thing is what they feel awe about, and that feeling awe about real stuff, like the physical world, is better than feeling awe about made-up stuff, like religion. See his post #62.

Claiming that others are "whop-de-do" about the real world is a straw man you seem to like, though. I'm bringing this in from another thread, because it seems off topic to continue the discussion there, but on-topic here:



It's possible for a skeptic to feel awe at the physical world and humanity, while still acknowledging that, objectively speaking, our part in the universe is insignificant, and that consciousness is no more special than many other things.

While there are surely some skeptics who do feel as you describe, it's a pretty common insult used by believers and other "spiritual" people toward anyone who doesn't agree with them: you're close-minded, you have no imagination, you don't feel anything because you're too negative, etc.

It makes me think you're more interested in building the same straw man to tear down, rather than listening to what skeptics are actually saying.

When he totally misunderstood Hans and started with the whoop-de-doos I pretty much gave up and am now waiting for the big reveal that will save the world.

The idea that atheists are cold unfeeling robots is usually called the "Spock fallacy".

 

[Navigator]

It's possible for a skeptic to feel awe at the physical world and humanity, while still acknowledging that, objectively speaking, our part in the universe is insignificant, and that consciousness is no more special than many other things.

While there are surely some skeptics who do feel as you describe, it's a pretty common insult used by believers and other "spiritual" people toward anyone who doesn't agree with them: you're close-minded, you have no imagination, you don't feel anything because you're too negative, etc.

It makes me think you're more interested in building the same straw man to tear down, rather than listening to what skeptics are actually saying.

If you get that impression from what I have been saying in this thread, you are misreading me.

If skeptics who use whop-de-do as a means of trying to squash an individuals feelings of awe regarding the way the individual chooses to see life, the planet, and their small part in it, and you consider this to be okay and acceptable, in what way is this assisting the process of getting on the same page in regard to that awesome thing?

Simply put, it either IS an awesome thing or it is not. 'Putting things into perspective' in relation to the size of something should have no bearing on the feelings related to awe, 'spirituality' or anything else. Otherwise the impression is that Science is no more than a tool for discovering personal worthlessness and that would be a completely wrong description.

Admittedly it is a kind of balancing act until you get it right, but if you take another look and listen to Carl Sagan's 'little blue dot' you might see that he does this very thing.
He does not deny the 'smallness' of our situation, any more than he suggests we take that as proof we should ignore the significance of our situation to the point of continuing to act as if it it does not need to be nurtured and given the best possible chance of surviving and prospering.

Squashing awe in favour of accepting the 'reality' we are nothing important has never and will never support such a beautiful amazing rare and potentially limitless thing as Human Consciousness.
The mindful is more special than the mindless because it has the potential to use its self realization to preserve and utilize and nurture - nurture even the mindless thing.
It is Consciousness which determines what is special and what is not, and if it forgets to include itself in that process, then it wont be going anywhere nice.


Whop-de-doism is not a 'straw man' (your argument is) it is an actual thing which does happen and seems directly related to wooism, as if it were an antidote to the woo disease - it is not. It is just as much as disease as wooism.

 

[Navigator]

When he totally misunderstood Hans and started with the whoop-de-doos I pretty much gave up and am now waiting for the big reveal that will save the world.

Imagine if you can, that this thread is a table and those participating are sitting at that table.
Now either Hans has left the table and is happy to have others speak for him/her or he is still at the table and keeping quiet and enjoying others speaking on his/her behalf and the distraction such a thing is trying to be.

Now navigator is still at the table and is hearing tsig speak about him/her as if he/she was not actually at the table.

Navigator can see quite clearly that tsig is being ignorant and sarcastic, but that has no bearing on navigators focus in regard to the table topic. What tsig expresses and the way tsig expresses is irrelevant, pointless, and more a display of what is going on inside of tsig than any accurate description of navigator, or the actual truth of the situation.
tsig's attitude does not own navigator. It owns tsig.

The idea that atheists are cold unfeeling robots is usually called the "Spock fallacy".

I have not met any cold unfeeling robotic 'atheists' but do understand that people can call themselves whatever they want to, but the way they chose to act does not necessarily prove that they are acting as they should, or that others calling themselves the same thing act the same way.

When it comes to whop-de-doism vs wooism nether can be said to be displaying any particular signs of 'spiritual behavior'.

 

[Pup]

If skeptics who use whop-de-do as a means of trying to squash an individuals feelings of awe regarding the way the individual chooses to see life, the planet, and their small part in it, and you consider this to be okay and acceptable, in what way is this assisting the process of getting on the same page in regard to that awesome thing?

Seriously? You're just going right on with your straw man, putting words in my mouth, not evening listening to what I'm saying.

What tsig said in post #173.

 

[tsig]

Imagine if you can, that this thread is a table and those participating are sitting at that table.
Now either Hans has left the table and is happy to have others speak for him/her or he is still at the table and keeping quiet and enjoying others speaking on his/her behalf and the distraction such a thing is trying to be.

Now navigator is still at the table and is hearing tsig speak about him/her as if he/she was not actually at the table.

Navigator can see quite clearly that tsig is being ignorant and sarcastic, but that has no bearing on navigators focus in regard to the table topic. What tsig expresses and the way tsig expresses is irrelevant, pointless, and more a display of what is going on inside of tsig than any accurate description of navigator, or the actual truth of the situation.
tsig's attitude does not own navigator. It owns tsig.




I have not met any cold unfeeling robotic 'atheists' but do understand that people can call themselves whatever they want to, but the way they chose to act does not necessarily prove that they are acting as they should, or that others calling themselves the same thing act the same way.
When it comes to whop-de-doism vs wooism nether can be said to be displaying any particular signs of 'spiritual behavior'.

So you think that atheists should be unfeeling robots?

 

[Navigator]

So you think that atheists should be unfeeling robots?

Is that what you think I said tsig?

 

[Navigator]

Seriously? You're just going right on with your straw man, putting words in my mouth, not evening listening to what I'm saying.

Answer the question:

Q: If skeptics who use whop-de-do as a means of trying to squash an individuals feelings of awe regarding the way the individual chooses to see life, the planet, and their small part in it, and you consider this to be okay and acceptable, in what way is this assisting the process of getting on the same page in regard to that awesome thing?

 

[tsig]

Imagine if you can, that this thread is a table and those participating are sitting at that table.
Now either Hans has left the table and is happy to have others speak for him/her or he is still at the table and keeping quiet and enjoying others speaking on his/her behalf and the distraction such a thing is trying to be.

Now navigator is still at the table and is hearing tsig speak about him/her as if he/she was not actually at the table.

Navigator can see quite clearly that tsig is being ignorant and sarcastic, but that has no bearing on navigators focus in regard to the table topic. What tsig expresses and the way tsig expresses is irrelevant, pointless, and more a display of what is going on inside of tsig than any accurate description of navigator, or the actual truth of the situation.
tsig's attitude does not own navigator. It owns tsig.




I have not met any cold unfeeling robotic 'atheists' but do understand that people can call themselves whatever they want to, but the way they chose to act does not necessarily prove that they are acting as they should, or that others calling themselves the same thing act the same way. When it comes to whop-de-doism vs wooism nether can be said to be displaying any particular signs of 'spiritual behavior'.

So you think that atheists should be unfeeling robots?

Is that what you think I said tsig?

Yes, I think that's the clear meaning of the hilited. You say that atheists aren't acting as they should. I take that to mean that you think that atheists don't act as robots as you think the should. This also fits with your whole theme in this thread.