Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Being Human - ; Physical ~ Spiritual ~ ....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Being Human - ; Physical ~ Spiritual ~ ....

    Sorta rummaging about where this sort of thread theme might set ... and realizing there could be another Sub-Forum or Two (let the Mods.-Etc. mull and decide, IF ...) it might/could go ...
    ... Still, it would seem that Barracks is the place for Now and 'to start' a thread of this sort of theme ....

    I start off seeding with a very long article which I confess, I've yet to read in thorough, but a bit of skim through shows has some potential interesting concept and ideas worth a bit of discussion~debate ....

    So, ... leading off with a sorta FWIW;

    Religion for the Nonreligious
    ...
    The mind… can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. ― John Milton

    The mind is certainly its own cosmos. — Alan Lightman

    You go to school, study hard, get a degree, and you’re pleased with yourself. But are you wiser?

    You get a job, achieve things at the job, gain responsibility, get paid more, move to a better company, gain even more responsibility, get paid even more, rent an apartment with a parking spot, stop doing your own laundry, and you buy one of those $9 juices where the stuff settles down to the bottom. But are you happier?

    You do all kinds of life things—you buy groceries, read articles, get haircuts, chew things, take out the trash, buy a car, brush your teeth, ****, sneeze, shave, stretch, get drunk, put salt on things, have sex with someone, charge your laptop, jog, empty the dishwasher, walk the dog, buy a couch, close the curtains, button your shirt, wash your hands, zip your bag, set your alarm, fix your hair, order lunch, act friendly to someone, watch a movie, drink apple juice, and put a new paper towel roll on the thing.

    But as you do these things day after day and year after year, are you improving as a human in a meaningful way?
    ...
    This wasn’'t just my own naiveté at work. Society at large focuses on shallow things, so it doesn'’t stress the need to take real growth seriously. The major institutions in the spiritual arena—religions—tend to focus on divinity over people, making salvation the end goal instead of self-improvement. The industries that do often focus on the human condition—philosophy, psychology, art, literature, self-help, etc.—lie more on the periphery, with their work often fragmented from each other. All of this sets up a world that makes it hard to treat internal growth as anything other than a hobby, an extra-curricular, icing on the life cake.

    Considering that the human mind is an ocean of complexity that creates every part of our reality, working on what’s going on in there seems like it should be a more serious priority. In the same way a growing business relies on a clear mission with a well thought-out strategy and measurable metrics, a growing human needs a plan—if we want to meaningfully improve, we need to define a goal, understand how to get there, become aware of obstacles in the way, and have a strategy to get past them.

    When I dove into this topic, I thought about my own situation and whether I was improving. The efforts were there—apparent in many of this blog’s post topics—but I had no growth model, no real plan, no clear mission. Just kind of haphazard attempts at self-improvement in one area or another, whenever I happened to feel like it. So I’ve attempted to consolidate my scattered efforts, philosophies, and strategies into a single framework—something solid I can hold onto in the future—and I’m gonna use this post to do a deep dive into it.
    ...
    What’'s in Our Way?

    The fog.

    To understand the fog, let’s first be clear that we’re not here:




    We’re here:



    And this isn’t the situation:




    This is:




    This is a really hard concept for humans to absorb, but it’s the starting place
    for growth. Declaring ourselves “conscious” allows us to call it a day and stop thinking about it. I like to think of it as a consciousness staircase:


    ..... ~~~~~~ ......
    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/r...e-nonreligious
    Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

  • #2
    Not really related but I saw a quote from Einstein today "the most complicated thing in the universe is the tax code". The next most complicated thing may be the definition of spirituality.

    Although I often criticize the social constructionist it seems obvious (obvious being an obvious logical fallacy) that spirituality is a social construct. By that I simply mean that it is a word from a specific language with an agreed on (more or less) definition. Language is abstract, but it is also a very useful tool. All language like math for example loses it's utility in proportionately to how carelessly the definitions are shared. It is therefor imperative that spiritual be carefully defined.

    I like any good empiricist have a prejudice for dividing the world in to categories to make things simply. For the above discussion I divide the world into body, mind, spirit and soul. I say world because life is a subjective experience. The body is the physical or wave functions that make up what we experience as the physical. The mind is the place where we store all the intuition pumps, memories and motivations, it should not be confused with the brain which is just the hardware the software runs on. The spirit is what connects the mind to the physical extended sensory experience in what would otherwise just be reflex. The soul is what makes us unique.

    Of course my defininition are just a place to start, their only utilities is to raise more questions.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #3
      ^ Which is the sort of perspectives and dialogue I was thinking of sparking off ...
      Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        ^ Which is the sort of perspectives and dialogue I was thinking of sparking off ...
        I have had these kind of discussions on philosophy boards and honestly I would rather have it here where people have "common sense". I have run into some very intelligent people on the internet over the years but the philosophy boards are dominated by progressives. My experience has been that people with high verbal IQs tend to also be high in the trait agreeableness. That doesn't mean that they are agreeable but that they tend to seek confirmation and appeals to authority dominate discussions.

        I happen to like Daniel Dennett when it comes to philosophy. My only gripe with him is the obsession with religion. Like Jonathan Haidt he is a bit of an apologist for the academy. While they were fighting the "evils" of religion the social justice cult grew right under their noses. I actually saw Haidt say that the problem associated with intersectionality and it's ilk didn't arise until around 2014. Common sense should have told them that something was going to fill the void left by religion and it wasn't going to be science.

        As consciousness seems to be an important part of this discussion take a look at this lecture.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaCedh4Dfs4

        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #5
          Are you therefore saying that Man invented spirituality in order to fulfill a "need" that he didn't even know he had to begin with?

          Th problem with "spirituality" is its inabilty to be measured, quantified or even physically identified, and that those without it do just as well or better than those who do.
          as an agnostic I am far better off than many of the people I know who are "spiritual". Not surprising, since agnostics and atheists tend to be pragmatists as well, a far better philosophy forsurviving in this current world than in believing the things that do not exist.

          The purpose of life, I'm sorry to say, is to live. Nothing more than that. We eat, work, play and procreate in order that we may do the same thing tomorrow and the next day and the next until we die. We do not labor to improve the world. We labor to survive. Thee are the instincts hard-wired into us, and we do not differ in this respect from any other living thing.

          Maslow perhaps summed it up a little better:

          Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
          • Self-actualization – includes morality, creativity, problem solving, etc.
          • Esteem – includes confidence, self-esteem, achievement, respect, etc.
          • Belongingness – includes love, friendship, intimacy, family, etc.
          • Safety – includes security of environment, employment, resources, health, property, etc.
          However, "morality" is a philosophical concept defined by the group, and is not present in many groups who remain extremely functional without it. One man's morality is another man's restrictions.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Are you therefore saying that Man invented spirituality in order to fulfill a "need" that he didn't even know he had to begin with?

            Th problem with "spirituality" is its inabilty to be measured, quantified or even physically identified, and that those without it do just as well or better than those who do.
            as an agnostic I am far better off than many of the people I know who are "spiritual". Not surprising, since agnostics and atheists tend to be pragmatists as well, a far better philosophy forsurviving in this current world than in believing the things that do not exist.

            However, "morality" is a philosophical concept defined by the group, and is not present in many groups who remain extremely functional without it. One man's morality is another man's restrictions.
            David started this thread in a way I believe decoupled spirituality from religious morality. I don't see the need myself. Religion is sufficiently universal that it must arise from human nature. If we are going to be Darwinian/empirical we will need to apply an inductive process in our analysis. In other words we study the components individually so we can develop a general theory of human nature. Your insistence that one of the manifestations of human nature is irrelevant is like leaving pieces out of a jigsaw puzzle.

            This attack on religion reminds me of the intersectional feminists concept of toxic masculinity. It relies too heavily on a social constructionist view. Religion is real just as masculinity is real. You can suppress it but it just takes on other expressions. We suppress masculinity there is an epidemic of attention deficit disorder in boys. We suppress religion and we have the cult of social justice.

            The idea that what philosophy studies is unreal is something I have addressed repeatedly. Human nature is abstract. In human evolution culture is the cause of phenological and genetic evolution. Culture is dependent on language and language is abstract representation. It is no coincidence that other animals with abstract reasoning ability are also social animals. Two examples come to mind Corvidaes and Great apes.

            I have condensed the above because of the nature of the discussion format and because David may see it as a distraction. I would prefer to have a focus on evolutionary psychology but frankly neither evolutionary theory or neurological science is advanced enough. It is also the case that common sense does not have the epistemological depth to deal with this type of discussion. I am not a fan of Kant but I would agree that the enlightenment has a few missing pieces. If you are going to talk about something like spirituality you just as well use some tools or intuition pumps that Western Philosophy has provided as long as they are consistent with science.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              Spirituality is a form of delusion just like optimism is,it doesn’t need to be used to explain reality as Spiritual experiences have led many people to believe throughout human history.
              What can be proven physically is what leads to the truth of life hopefully most humans will one day realize that.
              Last edited by Snowshoveler; 11 Jan 19, 23:11.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post
                Spirituality is a form of delusion just like optimism is,it doesn’t need to be used to explain reality as Spiritual experiences have led many people to believe throughout human history.
                What can be proven physically is what leads to the truth of life hopefully most humans will one day realize that.
                Define spirituality?
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                  Define spirituality?
                  Spirituality is defined as being concerned with the human soul which hasn’t been proven physically,but only been to be trusted to it’s existence through blind faith in an afterlife.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post

                    Spirituality is defined as being concerned with the human soul which hasn’t been proven physically,but only been to be trusted to it’s existence through blind faith in an afterlife.
                    That's your definition. A spiritual person would define it far differently.

                    G David, I understand your question, but there's simply no answer for you. You're looking in the wrong places. Man is but dust, and to dust he shall return; both he and his works will not endure. You are trying to inject meaning into something that has no meaning.
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post
                      Spirituality is a form of delusion just like optimism is,it doesn’t need to be used to explain reality as Spiritual experiences have led many people to believe throughout human history.
                      What can be proven physically is what leads to the truth of life hopefully most humans will one day realize that.
                      A delusion is a belief in a known falsehood. Belief in an unknown attribute is an opinion.

                      The truth as we know it is that there is something at work which gives us the experience of being. But we haven't yet gotten sophisticated enough to say with certainty what. Thus we contemplate and one such contemplation is the belief in the soul. Although spirituality goes beyond just that. ABut an important thing to remember are these three truths:

                      1. That which is true is true regardless of your ability to prove it. It was always true and does not need proof to be true.

                      2. That which is false is false regardless of how much faith you have in it. Just as truth does not need proof to manfest neither will faith manifest that which is not there. (Unless you live in the Warhammer 40K universe in which case BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!). These two truths convict both atheist and religionist alike.

                      3. That which is unknown is unknown. Not true until proven false as the fundamentalist would have it. Not false until proven true as the atheist would have it. Merely unknown. And contemplating the unknown is intellectually harmless.
                      A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I became a better person...
                        when I stopped reading crap like this!

                        The long toll of the brave
                        Is not lost in darkness
                        Over the fruitful earth
                        And athwart the seas
                        Hath passed the light of noble deeds
                        Unquenchable forever.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                          David started this thread in a way I believe decoupled spirituality from religious morality. I don't see the need myself. Religion is sufficiently universal that it must arise from human nature. If we are going to be Darwinian/empirical we will need to apply an inductive process in our analysis. In other words we study the components individually so we can develop a general theory of human nature. Your insistence that one of the manifestations of human nature is irrelevant is like leaving pieces out of a jigsaw puzzle.

                          This attack on religion reminds me of the intersectional feminists concept of toxic masculinity. It relies too heavily on a social constructionist view. Religion is real just as masculinity is real. You can suppress it but it just takes on other expressions. We suppress masculinity there is an epidemic of attention deficit disorder in boys. We suppress religion and we have the cult of social justice.

                          The idea that what philosophy studies is unreal is something I have addressed repeatedly. Human nature is abstract. In human evolution culture is the cause of phenological and genetic evolution. Culture is dependent on language and language is abstract representation. It is no coincidence that other animals with abstract reasoning ability are also social animals. Two examples come to mind Corvidaes and Great apes.

                          I have condensed the above because of the nature of the discussion format and because David may see it as a distraction. I would prefer to have a focus on evolutionary psychology but frankly neither evolutionary theory or neurological science is advanced enough. It is also the case that common sense does not have the epistemological depth to deal with this type of discussion. I am not a fan of Kant but I would agree that the enlightenment has a few missing pieces. If you are going to talk about something like spirituality you just as well use some tools or intuition pumps that Western Philosophy has provided as long as they are consistent with science.
                          Like most of those members here, you define a different opinion as an attack. That destroys the validity of everything that follows your opening statement.

                          I do not accept your concept that spirituality is a mandatory result of physical existence, period. You may define spirituality in any way you need to to fulfill your own needs, but you cannot mandate that others must accept your definitions, nor your intent in expressing them.

                          I accept that everything around me simply is, the results of billions of years of evolutionary and natural forces. There are no "gods" nor "spirits" involved at any stage. That is because I understand that for the fearful among us, such things as "religion" and "spirituality" are necessary crutches to quell the inner fears of death and the unknown. I myself fear neither death, the unavoidable end of my journey through life, nor the unknown, equally inevitable since I am merely human and cannot know everything.

                          "Toxic masculinity" is pure femspeak, and degrades you to the level of those who rely on such verbal crutches to explain their own deficiencies. Masculinity and femininity are merely the Yin and Yang of our world. They are not enemies, although many wish them to be.

                          As for David, I have known him on this forum far longer than your have and I have never known him to require assistance in defending his own views. You're simply using your alleged "defense" of his position in order to present your own views. Sounds like "toxic masculinity" to me.



                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            Like most of those members here, you define a different opinion as an attack. That destroys the validity of everything that follows your opening statement.

                            I do not accept your concept that spirituality is a mandatory result of physical existence, period. You may define spirituality in any way you need to to fulfill your own needs, but you cannot mandate that others must accept your definitions, nor your intent in expressing them.

                            I accept that everything around me simply is, the results of billions of years of evolutionary and natural forces. There are no "gods" nor "spirits" involved at any stage. That is because I understand that for the fearful among us, such things as "religion" and "spirituality" are necessary crutches to quell the inner fears of death and the unknown. I myself fear neither death, the unavoidable end of my journey through life, nor the unknown, equally inevitable since I am merely human and cannot know everything.

                            "Toxic masculinity" is pure femspeak, and degrades you to the level of those who rely on such verbal crutches to explain their own deficiencies. Masculinity and femininity are merely the Yin and Yang of our world. They are not enemies, although many wish them to be.

                            As for David, I have known him on this forum far longer than your have and I have never known him to require assistance in defending his own views. You're simply using your alleged "defense" of his position in order to present your own views. Sounds like "toxic masculinity" to me.


                            II don't know enough about David's views to attempt to defend them nor would I try if I did.

                            You totally missed the point on toxic masculinity. It was meant only to illustrate that while gender roles are social constructs they have a genetic component that gets ignored. While the idea of a "god gene" has been largely discredited our understanding of "nature vs nurture" is fairly limited. My argument, if you want to call it that, is that third wave feminism and the atheist movement to a lesser extent has elements of religiosity. Political affiliations, sports team fans, and many other social organizations also have manifestations of what could be called pseudo religious expressions. The idea that religion is only a crutch ignores how much social alienation and or actual persecution people will endure to maintain their faith. There are many examples of people dying rather than giving up their faith. To think of the issue by defining it in traditional organized religious terms misses the point. Take global warming as an example. There is no god element present in global warming. Accept there often is this kind worship of gaia or some similar concept of a living planet and or mother earth. Most people have no understanding of the science behind global warming yet they take the word of the climate science priests on faith. There are undoubtedly people who out of a moral panic would die to defend their faith in global warming who do not believe in an after life.

                            I tried to offer an alternative to the traditional definition of spirituality removing the more contentious ideas surrounding god for the purposes of discussing human nature. My central point however is not being addressed. It has to do with how humans evolved. Humans evolved a large brain because of culture, culture did not evolve because humans have a large brain. The interplay of nature and nurture of course means that one depends on the other but the initial step of adopting a culture of stone tools happened when humans ancestors had brains no larger than chimpanzees. Another example of culture leading evolution is human self domestication. The physical effects on genetics can be seen in what is called neoteny in humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny_in_humans

                            Before we can address the issue of culture's role in evolution we first have to accept a more confusing concept. What I call hyper realism. Hyper realism denies that the abstract is real. It is a dangerous trap that many neuroscientists and materialists in general fall into. There is a long standing philosophical debate summed up by what is called compatibilism and incompatibilism. I'm not going to go into the details here but the question is if the world is deterministic then things like freewill appear to be incompatible concepts. The problem exists primarily because the arguments are black and white. Like most philosophical discussions it ironically hinges on the abstraction we call language. The same people that hold to a strong incompatible stance go about their lives using abstract tools such as mathematics to define the nature of reality. To understand the contradiction think of mathematics in the same way we do money. Money is a tool for social organization and everyone understands that money has physical consequence but at the same time understands that money is not "real" but only a symbolic representation of or a tool for the exchange of material labor and goods. Mathematics similarly is a tool to model reality, it is a social construct and useful for the exchange of and development of ideas. Nothing about mathematics is real in the traditional sense of physical reality but by simplifying reality it has proven to be a powerful tool in understanding reality. Mathematics is such a powerful tool that we have now come to understand that reality is not what we thought it was and all the laws of physics have been turned on their head by quantum mechanics in which determinism or Newtonian physics breaks down at tiny scales. Our reality is not your great grandfathers reality and our great grandchildren will undoubtedly live in a different reality than we do all brought into existence by abstractions with real world consequences.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I must be on the lower end of the spectrum here..... you guys are giving me a headache. For years I have embraced the principle of KISS. Just a couple of things that have stuck in my mind concerning "life" Faith is having the ability to believe something is true in which there is no proof. Life has no meaning...…...it just happened. I am usually somewhere in between those two schools of thought...……..

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X