My dislike of both terms: religion/spirituality

[Moreno]

And perhaps not just the terms, but the phenomena themselves as they popularly manifest.

Is there another that can be used?

Religion make me think of one of the organized systems of practices and beliefs, generally with moral codes that are problematic to me, at least in part, and include things I do not consider true and or are detrimental to my spiritual well being - if not other kinds of well being. I see adherence to form and tradition often over against feeling and life. Misperceptions and cultural/psychological biases of specific times and individuals have been written down in, yes, stone.

Spirituality, a term I would like to like, makes me think of people who pick and choose and end up with something that really does not hang together and practices that circle in a single area without evolution. It seems like many if not most people who use the term spirituality are aiming at niceness - what they consider a profound version of it. The bulk of new age spirituality, often apolitical or better put antipolitical, very sattvic, is an example of this. Here it seems people use nice sounding words as if they were having a profound effect, when it is more like self-hypnosis.

Interestingly the term is built on the non-corporeal and often feels like it to me. Something ethereal. Relgions often prioritize transcendence and the afterlife - iow non-corporeal stuff like God and Heaven, but their works are heavy and seem connected, if often in ways I do not like, to the world. Spirituality seems all about transcendence, abstraction, rising above, being calm, floating.

Note: I am a theist.

[tentative]

There isn't any word that can't be made to seem negative. So come up with your own word and it will still have negative connotations despite your intentions. So shrug it off. It's hard enough finding consensus of the concepts without getting hung up on the names.

[Moreno]

There isn't any word that can't be made to seem negative. So come up with your own word and it will still have negative connotations despite your intentions. So shrug it off. It's hard enough finding consensus of the concepts without getting hung up on the names.

I think that's a fair answer, and generally that is what I do. Once in a great while I fumble for a short answer to a question and it would be nice to have a term. However, while it would be great if anyone actually found a word, I am more interested in people's reactions to the terms and the areas they are supposed to cover. I probably could have made that clearer.

[No-body]

I prefer the term self destruction. In that I am trying my best to destroy the veil of standardized living that has been instructed upon my brain. And really, from what I've gathered, a lot of religions seem to carry this theme. Breaking down the ego, loving your enemies, being a better person, living for a deeper meaning, so on. But in order for that to happen certain parts of who you are need to essentially be destroyed. So on the surface it sounds all emo n shit, but when you really dig into it I've found it to be the best way to describe what it is that I'm trying to do.

[Jayson]

You can call them whatever you want, really.

I define the two currently as:
Spirituality:
The pietistic (emotional and personal) act of applying human reverence towards ontological concerns in manners which may be practiced, faithed, and/or ritualized.

Spiritual:
Of or relating to the experience of spirituality existentially.

Religion:
An organized, and often officially recognized, body of combined spiritual components that is often paired with a given metaphysical narrative.

Religious:
Of or relating to the adherence to a religion; especially if well invested or loyal to a religion.

However, when I write papers, such as the one I'm working on atm, I make sure to specifically outline these definitions as I'm fully aware that these are not strict dictionary definitions.

[Xunzian]

I'd say that self-cultivation can be used to replace both religion and spirituality if one is talking about the process. Religion tends to mean organized religion and more importantly, is a useful box to label both one's own self as well as to allow one's self to be labeled by others. If a person describes themselves as a Christian or a Buddhist or whatever, for example, it says something about them that merely saying they like cake or riding their bike doesn't. I'd agree that spirituality also tends to be more directed towards some otherworldly element and so its use can become complicated. We can create our own definitions to circumvent this but redubbing a word already in use tends to create, rather than resolve, confusion. When I think of someone as being "spiritual" I think of some New Ager channeling spirits or some Charismatic speaking in tongues.

Self-cultivation is more general, in that it (hopefully) involves some system (similar to but not necessarily religious in nature) that improves the person as a whole (which practitioners of spirituality usually claim they are also trying to do). So it covers the bases while being sufficiently general and devoid of otherworldly meaning.

[anon]

I'd say that self-cultivation can be used to replace both religion and spirituality if one is talking about the process. Religion tends to mean organized religion and more importantly, is a useful box to label both one's own self as well as to allow one's self to be labeled by others. If a person describes themselves as a Christian or a Buddhist or whatever, for example, it says something about them that merely saying they like cake or riding their bike doesn't. I'd agree that spirituality also tends to be more directed towards some otherworldly element and so its use can become complicated. We can create our own definitions to circumvent this but redubbing a word already in use tends to create, rather than resolve, confusion. When I think of someone as being "spiritual" I think of some New Ager channeling spirits or some Charismatic speaking in tongues.

Self-cultivation is more general, in that it (hopefully) involves some system (similar to but not necessarily religious in nature) that improves the person as a whole (which practitioners of spirituality usually claim they are also trying to do). So it covers the bases while being sufficiently general and devoid of otherworldly meaning.

Good post, I think I might go further and say that "cultivation" brings together the positive aspect of religion and spirituality, while at the same time, as you implied, bringing it down to earth. The positive aspect of "religion" is that there are presumably practices involved, which might transform habits. That's what's generally missing from modern psychotherapy, for instance - practice. Changing habits takes time; the only sure way to go about this is to pay attention and actually do it. It might take hours every day if you really take it seriously. On the other hand, I think "spirituality" emphasizes fresh and transformative perspectives. I think this is equally important. I'm not really interested in "bettering" myself without the counter-perspective that the world is already perfect and complete in its present state. All I have to do is wake up and notice, and that is something I can do right now.

[Xunzian]

Good call, I like that clarification.

[Moreno]

I prefer the term self destruction. In that I am trying my best to destroy the veil of standardized living that has been instructed upon my brain. And really, from what I've gathered, a lot of religions seem to carry this theme. Breaking down the ego, loving your enemies, being a better person, living for a deeper meaning, so on. But in order for that to happen certain parts of who you are need to essentially be destroyed. So on the surface it sounds all emo n shit, but when you really dig into it I've found it to be the best way to describe what it is that I'm trying to do.

That's not really my take, but I think it is a very clear take. IOW I think you have clearly used a term that matches your goals, and I like that, even if my goals are not quite the same. There is certainly the dissolving of certain habits, but I don't experience this as destroying the self, but rather freeing it up. Undoing certain mental and emotional habits that were destroying myself.

So there is a kind of demolition involved, though I would rather say that it is a stopping of a kind of ongoing demolition of the self.

Appreciated your answer!

[Moreno]

You can call them whatever you want, really.

I define the two currently as:
Spirituality:
The pietistic (emotional and personal) act of applying human reverence towards ontological concerns in manners which may be practiced, faithed, and/or ritualized.

Spiritual:
Of or relating to the experience of spirituality existentially.

A key word here is pietistic and I wonder if you could define that for me in your terms. I suppose reverence also might need it. IOW can one say that someone who devotedly follows a baseball team IS spiritual. Note: note just could possibly be via this devotion.

Note: Spiritual according to the dictionaries generally focuses on the non-corporeal. I don't think your definition makes this focus clear or agrees with it. Thoughts?

And I am not in any way saying you are wrong. I rather like the above definition and think it works fairly well - with some wait and see around those two words. I am just seeing if you think the non-corporeal issue is a necessity.

Religion:
An organized, and often officially recognized, body of combined spiritual components that is often paired with a given metaphysical narrative.

Religious:
Of or relating to the adherence to a religion; especially if well invested or loyal to a religion.

However, when I write papers, such as the one I'm working on atm, I make sure to specifically outline these definitions as I'm fully aware that these are not strict dictionary definitions.

The second seems closer to the dictionary.

[Moreno]

I'd say that self-cultivation can be used to replace both religion and spirituality if one is talking about the process. Religion tends to mean organized religion and more importantly, is a useful box to label both one's own self as well as to allow one's self to be labeled by others. If a person describes themselves as a Christian or a Buddhist or whatever, for example, it says something about them that merely saying they like cake or riding their bike doesn't. I'd agree that spirituality also tends to be more directed towards some otherworldly element and so its use can become complicated. We can create our own definitions to circumvent this but redubbing a word already in use tends to create, rather than resolve, confusion. When I think of someone as being "spiritual" I think of some New Ager channeling spirits or some Charismatic speaking in tongues.

Self-cultivation is more general, in that it (hopefully) involves some system (similar to but not necessarily religious in nature) that improves the person as a whole (which practitioners of spirituality usually claim they are also trying to do). So it covers the bases while being sufficiently general and devoid of otherworldly meaning.

The latter part answered most of my questions. Self-cultivation seems like a good more general category.

[Moreno]

Good post, I think I might go further and say that "cultivation" brings together the positive aspect of religion and spirituality, while at the same time, as you implied, bringing it down to earth.

So how would you relate these ideas to more earthbound, immanent religions: say a number of indigenous ones, Native American for example. Here we do have spiritual elements - in the classic sense of non-corporeal beings (though the corporeal/non corporeal distinction is at the very least not the same as in Abrahamic traditions.

The positive aspect of "religion" is that there are presumably practices involved, which might transform habits.

Though from the Abrahamic perspective it is not habits that are the problem it is the very nature of humans that is partially bad and (pious/moral) habits are part of the rescue.

That's what's generally missing from modern psychotherapy, for instance - practice.

Homework seems like a given, though it isn't. Though to be fair to psychotherapy, I do think most practitioners are discussion how to break patterns in real life and discussing how this is going outside the sessions. The sessions are seen as tool gathering instances - along with other purposes like catharsis, insight, etc. But in addition, many therapists see a learning by informed doing as key to the process.

Changing habits takes time; the only sure way to go about this is to pay attention and actually do it. It might take hours every day if you really take it seriously. On the other hand, I think "spirituality" emphasizes fresh and transformative perspectives. I think this is equally important. I'm not really interested in "bettering" myself without the counter-perspective that the world is already perfect and complete in its present state. All I have to do is wake up and notice, and that is something I can do right now.

So self-cultivation as a vastly more aesthetically appealing term than self-improvement. But here the focus in on the self, rather than say religious and spiritual practices that have to do with a dialogue with a numinous other or others. Ken Wilber thinks this is lacking in some modern practices and that only part of enlightenment or insight can be gathered without this encounter. (note, this is not an appeal to authority. I am not saying he is right. I just noticed that the self was the primary focus here, so far in the thread, and Wilber's categories and analysis of various practices has been helpful in my conception of various approaches.

[Jayson]

A key word here is pietistic and I wonder if you could define that for me in your terms. I suppose reverence also might need it.

Piestistic: Stress, or focus, on the emotional and personal aspects of ontological experiences; existentially applied ontology.

Reverence: The state of regarding with awe, deference, or devotion.

IOW can one say that someone who devotedly follows a baseball team IS spiritual. Note: note just could possibly be via this devotion.

They are spiritual; just not ontologically.
If being so devoted to their sport and team was also a guiding prompt for ontological understanding of their subjective place in the big wide world of their perspective on life and the universe...then it would be a spiritual ontology (to me anyway).

Note: Spiritual according to the dictionaries generally focuses on the non-corporeal. I don't think your definition makes this focus clear or agrees with it. Thoughts?

That's dogmatic and not something I see as inherent to every human being that experiences or evokes spiritual context of emotional interpretations of their ontological standing in existence.

So no, I don't see that as part of the definition.
That is derived from the root: spirit.
But I disagree with that being used, today, for non-corporal anything beyond the idea of the essence or purpose of a thing, or a strong emotional force.

Soul, to me, is where things should get non-corporal.

That is how I write in my own works, so that I can be very, very clear about what I mean with these otherwise extremely slippery words.

[Moreno]

Piestistic: Stress, or focus, on the emotional and personal aspects of ontological experiences; existentially applied ontology.

Reverence: The state of regarding with awe, deference, or devotion.

Awe and deference and devotion often include an OTHER. Is this so for your sense of the spiritual? Does a non-theist Buddhist fit this criterion?

IOW can one say that someone who devotedly follows a baseball team IS spiritual. Note: not just could possibly be via this devotion.

They are spiritual; just not ontologically.
If being so devoted to their sport and team was also a guiding prompt for ontological understanding of their subjective place in the big wide world of their perspective on life and the universe...then it would be a spiritual ontology (to me anyway).

OK

Note: Spiritual according to the dictionaries generally focuses on the non-corporeal. I don't think your definition makes this focus clear or agrees with it. Thoughts?

That's dogmatic and not something I see as inherent to every human being that experiences or evokes spiritual context of emotional interpretations of their ontological standing in existence.

So a humanist atheist skeptic - the last term in relation to non-corporeal entities in general - could be spiritual, even if they see the universe as primarily not living and lacking meaning? (I am triangulating, not trying to back you into a corner)

So no, I don't see that as part of the definition.
That is derived from the root: spirit.
But I disagree with that being used, today, for non-corporal anything beyond the idea of the essence or purpose of a thing, or a strong emotional force.

Soul, to me, is where things should get non-corporal.

Soul, sure, God, spirits, even meaning if there is any sense of objective meaning, reincarnation - though this is connected to the idea of a soul - ghosts, fate, and many kinds of felt interconnections with nature with others, could all fall under the category non-corporeal.

Personally I think the distinction between corporeal and non-corporeal is a false dilemma and one heartily perpetuated by both the scientific community and certain theists, but I tend to see those phenomena labeled non-corporeal as integral to spirituality (and religion).

[Jayson]

Awe and deference and devotion often include an OTHER. Is this so for your sense of the spiritual?

Yes, even an idea can be that other; it need not be a person.

Does a non-theist Buddhist fit this criterion?

Yes.

So a humanist atheist skeptic - the last term in relation to non-corporeal entities in general - could be spiritual, even if they see the universe as primarily not living and lacking meaning? (I am triangulating, not trying to back you into a corner)

Absolutely.
We have such a person here at ILP: No-Body.
He also drew one of the more beautiful personal spiritual symbols I've seen in a while.

Soul, sure, God, spirits, even meaning if there is any sense of objective meaning, reincarnation - though this is connected to the idea of a soul - ghosts, fate, and many kinds of felt interconnections with nature with others, could all fall under the category non-corporeal.

For my purposes, I do not use the language of, "spirits", as it would confuse the use of the term, "spirit", as I described it previously (the essence or purpose of a thing, or a strong emotional force).
While, as I would refer to it, this is a metaphysical or transitive concept; I do not take a leap between the transitive to equate to "non-corporal" in that if the concept involves a living human being in the process of grasping, then I do not consider it to be without the body.

Soul, and ghosts are example forms of non-corporal that I personally readily recognize.
For these reasons, I typically do not address them in my works as there is nothing to address.
Soul has an exception in some of my work, but I tend to not wish to touch on the matter as it offends a great deal of people's personal ontological identities.

Personally I think the distinction between corporeal and non-corporeal is a false dilemma and one heartily perpetuated by both the scientific community and certain theists, but I tend to see those phenomena labeled non-corporeal as integral to spirituality (and religion).

There is no such distinction between transitive and intransitive outside of marking which point of the transition is being discussed.
It is as to say there is no distinct point between water and a wave, but there is a point in marking the difference between the two for measure: one is a body, one is a motion.

I tend to stay away from terms like corporal and non-corporal for similar reasons; I do not find that it is all too clear as to what I am discussing to others if I write those terms due to their history in literature, philosophy, and theology.

If, however, I use the terms, "transitive", and "intransitive", then I have captured the non-preset concepts of the words well and avoided borrowing previous baggage that I must spend time unloading to make myself clear.

As "sleep" (as an intransitive verb) is to "fate" in the sense of not requiring a direct object, while "named" (as a transitive verb) is to "spirit" (as I defined it above) as for requiring a direct object to complete the meaning.

And indeed, I can discuss some concepts in both manners of how they arrive as a transitive and other ways that they arrive as an intransitive.
"Life", for instance is a great example of such.
I can bring it into discussion as either and show how the distinction between the transitive and the intransitive (as you call it, corporal and non-corporal) is interlinked in a dance of motion; just like water and wave are both the tsunami, but not in every moment of exploration each other.

[anon]

Good post, I think I might go further and say that "cultivation" brings together the positive aspect of religion and spirituality, while at the same time, as you implied, bringing it down to earth.

So how would you relate these ideas to more earthbound, immanent religions: say a number of indigenous ones, Native American for example. Here we do have spiritual elements - in the classic sense of non-corporeal beings (though the corporeal/non corporeal distinction is at the very least not the same as in Abrahamic traditions.

I think cultivation includes opening oneself up, as opposed to narrowing and shutting down. Quakers, classically, "listen" for God's voice. Likewise, native american spirituality (I think, as I don't know much about it) also involves cultivating the ability to access spiritual realms.

The positive aspect of "religion" is that there are presumably practices involved, which might transform habits.

Though from the Abrahamic perspective it is not habits that are the problem it is the very nature of humans that is partially bad and (pious/moral) habits are part of the rescue.

Yes, I disagree with this Abrahamic assessment. Though I don't think the situation is as simple as agree versus disagree. I can understand why people think such a thing, and my disagreement, in part, involves some alternative ways of conceptualizing the whole thing. For instance, "nature" is distinguished from "habits" for many (most or all, I think) Buddhists. So our "true nature" is not observed, for instance, by observing how wild animals act. Wild animals are, like us, embroiled in habit. So it's a complex issue...

So self-cultivation as a vastly more aesthetically appealing term than self-improvement. But here the focus in on the self, rather than say religious and spiritual practices that have to do with a dialogue with a numinous other or others. Ken Wilber thinks this is lacking in some modern practices and that only part of enlightenment or insight can be gathered without this encounter. (note, this is not an appeal to authority. I am not saying he is right. I just noticed that the self was the primary focus here, so far in the thread, and Wilber's categories and analysis of various practices has been helpful in my conception of various approaches.

I think it's a more aesthetically appealing term (for you and I, apparently - not for everyone), because it really does have a different connotation. There is both self-cultivation and self-improvement; there are histories with respect to how those terms are used. It might be enlightening to compare to similar uses of the terms - there is home improvement but not home cultivation; there is garden cultivation, and also garden improvement. If Ken Wilber says there must be an encounter with a "numinous other" for "insight" to occur, then I wonder what exactly he means by "numinous". I don't know anything about Ken Wilber, by the way.

[tentative]

I get confused when we try to make the distinction between corporeal and non-corporeal. It seems like an not useful distinction in any place but the rigors of the scientific method of inquiry. As a human, I cannot separate heart/mind into neat little parcels without creating an artificial construct. Feelings, (awe and reverence) are simply part of the human condition. Constructs composed of words cannot dismiss them. But sourcing these feelings is an enigma. We have no way to know if awe and reverence isn't a subconscious construct of the brain attempting to "make sense" of the unknown. So that which we label spirituality and soul retain vague realities and all of our words and metaphors are truly the ghosts in our lives.

The question of self cultivation and self improvement is far more useful in that they lead to actionable perspectives. I would suggest that self cultivation is the progenitor of self improvement. Although, "improvement" is certainly a personal definition. As to numinous others, one might consider that until we have grappled with our own devils, we have nothing to offer others. Within this perspective, it is our coming to terms with self that makes sharing with the numious others possible.

[Moreno]

I think cultivation includes opening oneself up, as opposed to narrowing and shutting down. Quakers, classically, "listen" for God's voice. Likewise, native american spirituality (I think, as I don't know much about it) also involves cultivating the ability to access spiritual realms.

That makes sense to me. I realized after reading your post that I tend to associate cultivation with achieving being cultivated, which I've associated with a certain kind of refined cultural expertise. Which I suppose, in my associations has a kind of plateau where you are cultivated. Not arguing this is correct, just relating I realized this was part of my resistence to the term. I suppose also that it was about form.

Yes, I disagree with this Abrahamic assessment. Though I don't think the situation is as simple as agree versus disagree. I can understand why people think such a thing, and my disagreement, in part, involves some alternative ways of conceptualizing the whole thing. For instance, "nature" is distinguished from "habits" for many (most or all, I think) Buddhists. So our "true nature" is not observed, for instance, by observing how wild animals act. Wild animals are, like us, embroiled in habit. So it's a complex issue...

Yes, I think the idea of a conditioned self is not as complete in Christianity, at least most Christianity. Mystical Christianity may be a different thing.

I think it's a more aesthetically appealing term (for you and I, apparently - not for everyone), because it really does have a different connotation. There is both self-cultivation and self-improvement; there are histories with respect to how those terms are used. It might be enlightening to compare to similar uses of the terms - there is home improvement but not home cultivation; there is garden cultivation, and also garden improvement. If Ken Wilber says there must be an encounter with a "numinous other" for "insight" to occur, then I wonder what exactly he means by "numinous". I don't know anything about Ken Wilber, by the way

.

He has been trying for decades to not only reconcile the stages, states and concepts in various religions, both East and West, but also combine this with psychology, hermeneutics and some other more Western areas of expertise.
This book is an attempt to rapidly sum up his position. I had to go through it a couple of times, at least a year apart in time, to feel like I understood it. Not that it is necessarily hard - I think I have certain kinds of conceptual dyslexias, along with some impatience. I don't agree with him, but he is exceptionally intelligent and I think his position has many merits.

He considers the experience of SELF - where one is Jesus, or Krisha, or The Buddha - to be an incomplete enlightenment, unless one has also encountered this as THE OTHER. My guess would be that Wilber started as a Buddhist and gained his discipline and experience of other states first via this worldview. From there he moved to integrate other positions and complement. It's not that he has some open bias, he is really rather collegial with other religions. It's more that I think Buddhists would be content with many of his schematics and conclusions whereas practitioners of other religions might feel their religion slid into his.

[Moreno]

I get confused when we try to make the distinction between corporeal and non-corporeal.

I think that is likely a good sign. The terms are confused. Material and physical in materialism and physicalism now include 'things' that are really quite incorporeal. I mean even neutrinos, happily coursing through your body right now with impact are pretty damn solid compared to other things in physics.

It is one of the sticking points between scientists and religious people and really if they both understood their terms, it might be seen as a false fight. Likewise around some of the mind body arguments.

The question of self cultivation and self improvement is far more useful in that they lead to actionable perspectives. I would suggest that self cultivation is the progenitor of self improvement. Although, "improvement" is certainly a personal definition. As to numinous others, one might consider that until we have grappled with our own devils, we have nothing to offer others. Within this perspective, it is our coming to terms with self that makes sharing with the numious others possible.

The numinous other would be God or Jesus or Mohammed or Krishna or The Buddha, etc.