A refreshingly honest and thoughtful thread, Stumps. I will need to read and reread in order to comment with due consideration. I like your distinction beween religion and spirituality. I also agree that spirtuality has physical precedents. For me, spirituality as ontological has to do with “the kingdom within” and with the experience, often brought about by meditation, of a mind relieved of ruminations, guesses and fears. What we express mentally is only a hint of the knowing we are born with, hence the difficulty of expressing spiritual matters and the temptation to confine them to the unreal realm of the ineffable. I have problems with religious ideas that pit mind, body and spirit against each other, that pit this world against some other world and that hold that spiritual knowing is only available to certain chosen elite. As for Bomanism, I can’t quite distinguish it from Tao.
It comes and goes.
Ebbs and flows.
Thank you.
Would you consider anxiety of life a spiritual experience?
It’s possible that you may not be able to.
And so do Earthquakes and Tsunamis - but this does not mean that we do not pause and reflect in order to increase compassion and wisdom.
There are times for learning and there are times for forgetting.
Now is one of those times to forget – to rest and to abide in that which I am.
To abide in that which I have no memory of.
To release myself from the constraints of my identity.
To forget and to “know” other.
Cheers
Roboerto
Stumps,
Well, IMHO, anxiety is belief in dearth–that there is not enough here on the Earth of anything that could satisfy all human needs. Spirituality may entail knowing which needs are valid. The change of belief in dearth may contitute a spiritual awakening. The problem of seeing what is physical as containing what is spiritual possibly has to do with our human need to personalize, a need probably dependent on a brain that has arrived at the complexity in which it experiences extreme self-awareness. What is physical is open to interpretation as impersonal. The need for the personal may have prompted the Platonic-Christian notion of spirit as entrapped in body. Does bomanism provide the personal/impersonal complementation necessary for describing physical spirituality?
I’m not entirely certain that I understand this specific sentence, but in regards to the previous leading up to this line, I’ll offer skimming or reading through my thoughts on the following:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=174418
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=173974
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=173974
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=174209
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=173068
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=172534
Basically, I generally agree with your first part of context, but have gone about elaborating on that very issue quite extensively as that has been and is my primary interest spiritually as a human being.
As I’ve been quoted as saying, “You are my god”.
Alright, on to that last line.
As I said, i’m not entirely sure what your question is asking me, but I will say this in case it helps in some way.
What I do is examine how spirituality works behaviorally, anthropologically, and biologically.
Then I take my meditations on life, my contemplations and feelings about things, and entangle these concepts into the articulation methods that I’ve identified as effective ontological mediums from the human being’s existing theological behaviors anthropologically and currently, with a mind on effective provocation of articulating in means utilizing an understanding of consequence psychologically and neurologically.
The colors, symbols, the metaphors, the tones, the words choices, and the function of making the title (bomanism) of the construct fit into an acronym with that particular phonetic structure and attractive format, are all anything but accidental or arbitrary.
This concept is at the heart of what, for now, I call a philosophical spiritual ontology; of which itself will one day be summed up into a similar articulate acronym as bomanism has had done to it.
This will happen after I have finished the other primary two “chapter’s” of the total outline.
After that is done, then the primary discourse on how to interact with these thoughts is suggested and a perspective shared on how their interdependence in an organic, yet systematic network and fluctuation is held.
I’m not sure if that helps you in that question or not?
Bomanism is a representation of your disrespect of other peoples beilefs
It is not something that is welcoming of the beliefs of others but only hides under a cloak of invisibility and deceit.
The simple act of using a little “g” is a sign of disresepct of another persons beliefs.
This simple act is belittling and hence if it belittles then how can it be used alongside ones own religion?
Bomansim hides under a cloak of respect but is fundamentally dishonest - it is a lie.
It is a representation of your historical context and content - that is all and nothing more.
TheStumps, you are bending people over and sodomizing them - while at the same time telling them that your ideas can work alongside theirs.
Is the following quote something you wish people say to you - as you are sodomizing them?
Belittle (verb) —Synonyms: minimize, decry, deprecate, deride, scorn, dismiss.
Roberto…you have a very warped view of my motives and interests.
Your vantage is so sick and twisted in your ideals regarding me as a person that it is vial in my mouth the way you can think of me in such lights.
What I can say is this: you have me pegged about as wrong as you can possibly be.
That said, obviously, the shoe doesn’t fit for you, which is perfectly fine.
Bomanism isn’t a regiment whereby “I must be right” and “they must be wrong”.
Nor did I write Bomanism with an interest of disrespecting anyone.
It’s a singular perspective by which I only share with the interest of showing an example of how to articulate one’s own personal spiritual expressions in an ontological format.
It is akin to making a website so that people can take a look at the code of the website to learn how to make their own websites.
But Bomanism itself, that is my cardinal and personal view unto myself.
I wrote all of it originally for myself and no other.
After I did, I arrived at the aforementioned idea of the ontological expression as a shared medium.
And as I see it, there is nothing stopping anyone, by any tangent within Bomanism, from adhering to any religion of their choosing as Bomanism itself isn’t a religion but a spiritual philosophy regarding a manner in which to perceive one’s own self to one’s own self.
It negates nothing of religion, nor really addresses anything of the divine.
TheStumps, you have shown much disrespect for many faiths on this board - those with faith are people who have an identity and self.
Your quote below is a very clear and precise example of this disrespect.
It is an extremely belittling view to hold and a sick and twisted way of treating others and their views.
TheStumps, my words were and are very clear and precise, and were also very descriptive.
Let me repeat TheStumps: It is an extremely belittling view to hold and a sick and twisted way of treating others and their views - this view is reflected in Bomanism but hidden under a cloak of invisibility… who is it hidden from?
Your view once more:
That is not a slam on religion.
That was in response to a thread which asked a direct question about what the minimum requirements are for a god.
That prayer, while pulled from Monty Python in basic concept, was put there as a specific point of catching the vagueness of the entirety of the concept regarding divinities in general.
It was not a slam at all.
Gods must be bigger, awe inspiring, and something in which humans hope to please, and hope to benefit from.
That was the point of that.
If you can have a thing with which that prayer concept could not be said to apply, then it isn’t much of a god at all as it isn’t capable of being anything bigger than yourself or another human being, nor satisfying any grant or gift of its decision unto you.
Where else have I expressed something that you see as offensive?
Also, what is the conflict you are seeing in these statements:
Bomanism can be used along side one’s religion, if one has one, or just along side of one’s world view and view of their humanity.
But Bomanism itself, that is my cardinal and personal view unto myself.
I wrote all of it originally for myself and no other.
I am referring to people - those who have identities and a self.
Are you an authority on the topic of how it would be most beneficial for people to hold their faith?
It is a slam on the way a person holds their belief - it is belittling of a person beliefs - It is disrespectful.
I really did not mean any disrespect and I deeply apologize for offending you, truly.
I only intended to answer the question as it appears to me, which though my delivery obviously offended you - to which I apologize - the core point of something needing to be bigger than ourselves as humans that we can invest in with faith that the investment will not be abused, but instead returned in favor, is cardinal to what a requirement is for a divinity to be such to humans as far as I see it.
I will go back and remove the offense and reply with an appropriate articulation that is less offensive.
Again, I am deeply sorry for the offense.
In regards to this:
I’m not certain I understand what the statement and question are addressing?
Am I seeming to tell people how they should hold their faiths?
I am not offended TheStumps and thank you for your apology.
I do not believe in God (spelt with a uppercase G) but hold respect for those who do and for their beliefs (whatever they may be).
Do you believe in God TheStumps? Are you an authority on the topic of a person’s belief in God?
Are you in the position to comment on a person’s belief systems?
No, but that’s a half answer.
I’m a transtheist; meaning, I don’t personally care about gods.
They could walk next to me daily and gods would not be a point of focus in my life spiritually.
Only each person is their authority on such a matter.
If they ask me to, I can share my perspective.
IMHO, what is spiritual begins with what is physical. The first level is need. The second level is expression of need as archetypal image and consequent belief. The third level is revision of belief from the epigenetic impact of self interacting with what is other. Archetypes of Serpent, Eve and Adam, for example, represent brain stem, limbic system and neocortex in their evolving interdependencies.
I agree completely with this.
Where you wrote, “begins with what is physical”, that’s all that I was outlining previously in that chain.
Your account is appropriately on point in regards to creation or identification of one’s own spiritual belief.
If you do not care then why talk about it?
Do you consider it as respectful (to a person’s beliefs) when you give opinions on something that you do not care about?
Does this not appear to you as an odd type of behaviour?
Does this quote not appear as odd to you when coming from a person who says that they do not care:
So a person who does not believe in another’s faith and does not care for it - can have a perspective of it?
Does this seem odd?
TheStumps, this you will not understand - This odd behaviour of yours is disrespectful of another person, how they identity themselves, and how they place themselves within their own world view… I have now come to the conclusion that this is beyond your comprehension as you lack any concern for it.
If that behavior is disrespectful, then I cannot apologize as it is a core part of my love of humanity and core to my spirituality.
I cherish the subject of the divine and hold the discourse sacred because I am in admiring wonder as one is standing amongst the dew softly floating through the air during the crisp and clean sunrise on a North Pacific island.
I don’t talk of gods and people’s beliefs because I think it low.
I talk of the gods and people’s believes because I think it a wonder of cherished fortune.
The provocation of our kind to this end is a grace unto our existence greatly under appreciated in and of itself.
As I’ve said elsewhere:
In relation to this conversation and the quoted, I will add a unification of the two in disclosing that “I watch you cry. I love you more. I watch you laugh. I love you more. I watch you hurt yourself. I rial with anger in offense at desecrating the sacredness of your own kind. I watch you believe. I watch the formula unravel of how a butterfly becomes.”
You may see me as offensive for this.
But I will never apologize for admiring the beautiful matrix of the human spirit as it rests within our nature, nor how that occurs wondrously.
Bless you!!!
So how does Bomanism address the human dilemma of our being affected personally by impersonal forces while we have biological evolved to need the personal?
Bomanism doesn’t answer everything. It doesn’t address all issues in a human experience.
What it does is give a concept about relating to one’s own self and relating to one’s own life.
With this, you can apply the ideas to flexibly fit into other considerations.
It is like Bruce Lee’s JKD ideology, once again.
What he taught was one way to apply JKD, but JKD did not address every possible scenario.
Instead, adaptation through flexibility - allowing JKD to be altered and expanded upon individually - was the explained concept.
A basic form of something similar would be called upon from JKD and applied to the situation uniquely for which one found their self.
Similarly, this is how Bomanism works.
For instance, you ask about a specific issue that is not directly addressed in Bomanism.
How does Bomanism address the human dilemma of our being affected personally by impersonal forces while we have biologically evolved to need the personal?
There are a couple different ways you can approach this from the Boman concepts.
As an example, you could see it as an extension of Motion or the Metaphorical Clock.
If it is a consideration of Motion, then it is because:
Imagine all of your life and yourself, every emotion, every event, every person - everything that is not your awareness.
Now imagine all of these things as floating slates of stone that are constantly moving and flipping.
If it is considered of the Metaphorical Clock, then it is because:
Peace is the core self nature accepting the need for the mind, body, and spirit to move through different emotions and states of being over time so that we can continue to be alive.
You could also see it as a Teacher of the Self in Surpassing Sufferring under the idea that you need to explore that question for your sense of self.
Conflicts and unrest are teachers to our selves; they allow our self nature to help teach us what our self nature is.
We should not dismiss teachers of the self nature, but we should surpass them the same as any pupil surpasses any teacher of any tutelage.
So, Bomanism says nothing directly on the evolution of our biology.
I do discuss your specific question, however, I do that separately than Bomanism as it is not part of what Bomanism is intended to contain in basic form Meaning, if someone personalizes Bomanism to have an answer for themselves of such, this is fine, but what is there now is intended to be the “starter kit”, so-to-speak and apply broadly philosophically in spiritual consideration.
However, if you wanted to see how this works from my mind; the answer to such a question; then I would point to two discussions that are not within Bomanism:
Revisiting the Zombie Argument Starting on page 4 onward (sorry, that one takes a while. I will eventually be pulling my refined thoughts together from that thread for a proper reading, but at this stage you would need to run through the thread to directly address a part of that question).
The other is much more clean and easy to read:
Shaking The Hand of Reality
But the Boman answer directly would be a question: “What does Bomanism cause you to think the answer is to your question?”
TheStumps, I am not suggesting that it is your intention to speak of such things as low and I have never thought of it like that. I actually hold much respect for you, your beliefs and hold your own experience in high regards (despite appearances).
If you love humanity as much as you do then you too must cherish what humanity also loves and holds dear.
My partner has a twisted and bent stick in her car that looks like a Harry Potter magic wand. This stick (to her) symbolizes a certain moment in our history as a couple. To me - it is just a stick but to her it is a lot more than a stick. I love her very much and am aware of how important that stick is to her. I could not bring myself - ever - to speak of the stick in such a way that it belittles her view. When she is there I cherish the stick and when she is not there I still cherish the stick. I cherish the stick through the natural consequence of cherishing my partner - it is important to her and so it is important to me - and I am not putting on an act for her. But at no point do I hold the same view of the stick as she holds. I simply cherish it because I cherish her - no other reason.
TheStumps, if you love humanity like you say you do then you must also cherish what humanity cherishes (holds as precious). If you love humanity like you say you do then you will have no other option but to cherish what they cherish as they cherish it (even if you hold a different view). If you love humanity and cherish what humanity cherishes then you will have no other option but to apologize and develop regret (where regret is the “wish” to not do a certain thing again – this is not guilt).
TheStumps I seek no apology and do not feel harmed– do as you wish. I am simply responding to the OP as I see fit and as I see it in its entirety and in the context of what I know of you and your thoughts.