Spirituality is...

[derleydoo]

John White: What is Spirituality?

Level by level of reality, we can define spirituality like this:

In physical terms, it is recognising the mystery and miracle of the creative source behind matter.

In biological times, it is realizing that a divine intelligence lies behind all life-change, evolving creation to ever-greater degrees of wholeness and perfection.

In psychological terms, it is discovering within yourself the ultimate source of meaning and happiness.

In sociological terms, it is giving selfless service to others, regardless of race, creed, colour, gender, caste of nationality.

In ecological terms, it is showing respect for all kingdoms in the community of life–mineral, vegetable, animal, human and spirit.

In cosmological terms, it is being at one with the universe, in tune with the infinite, flowing with the Tao.

In theological terms, it is seeing God in all things, all events and circumstances, indwelling as infinite light and unconditional love.

[statiktech]

I don’t really find this helpful because you’re not dispelling any of the ambiguity related to the term. In fact, you seem to embrace it. The term becomes so ambiguous as to be near meaningless when treated this way.

Let me ask you this: If someone were to tell you that he considers himself a spiritual person, would you assume all of the above about him or would ask him to be more specific?

[Flannel_Jesus]

@statiktech

Let me ask you this: If someone were to tell you that he considers himself a spiritual person, would you assume all of the above about him or would ask him to be more specific?

Good question. I was thinking something similar myself.

[Mr_Reasonable]

A lot of times I see people defining things as what they want them to be rather than what they actually are. Then they show some kinda deduction from a silly definition and pretend like they only understand bits and pieces of logic.

It’s exhausting.

[tentative]

@Smears

A lot of times I see people defining things as what they want them to be rather than what they actually are. Then they show some kinda deduction from a silly definition and pretend like they only understand bits and pieces of logic.

It’s exhausting.

Soooo… please explain to me how things actually are - outside of whatever construct you use to make sense of the world. It might be exhausting… :-"

[felix_dakat]

Spirituality is religion without dogma or institutional boundaries.

[Mr_Reasonable]

@tentative

@Smears

A lot of times I see people defining things as what they want them to be rather than what they actually are. Then they show some kinda deduction from a silly definition and pretend like they only understand bits and pieces of logic.

It’s exhausting.

Soooo… please explain to me how things actually are - outside of whatever construct you use to make sense of the world. It might be exhausting… :-"

I’m pretty sure that the way things actually are is such that we exist in a constant state of indeterminancy.

[statiktech]

Felix,

So then spirituality is a set of beliefs rather than a state of being?

[Mr_Reasonable]

@statiktech

Felix,

So then spirituality is a set of beliefs rather than a state of being?

Isn’t your state of being, to some extent determined by your beliefs?

[derleydoo]

@statiktech

I don’t really find this helpful because you’re not dispelling any of the ambiguity related to the term. In fact, you seem to embrace it. The term becomes so ambiguous as to be near meaningless when treated this way.

I posted this in response to a comment of Bob’s in the ‘Religion is…’ thread. In said thread Bob seemed to be bemoaning the fact that spirituality went on behind closed doors in ivory towers. My view is such that the spirit does what it jolly well likes.

@statiktech

Let me ask you this: If someone were to tell you that he considers himself a spiritual person, would you assume all of the above about him or would ask him to be more specific?

The spirit is not boastful. I don’t believe anyone could genuinely say, “I am a spiritual person.” In terms of spirituality I believe action speaks louder than words.

More than likely I would secretly follow the claimant for a number of days.

[felix_dakat]

@statiktech

Felix,

So then spirituality is a set of beliefs rather than a state of being?

No, I didn’t mean to imply that nor do I believe it. So, the essence of religion is not a set of beliefs. It is an experience of power beyond what we know or understand.

[anon]

@Smears

I’m pretty sure that the way things actually are is such that we exist in a constant state of indeterminancy.

@Smears

Isn’t your state of being, to some extent determined by your beliefs?

Good stuff, Smears.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Thanks I’d like to credit my old philosophy professor who gave me the first one, and who first labeled me as a contrarian. Thanks Dr. Whall.

The second one I’m pretty sure was roughly plagiarized from a David Lewis paper, but I’m sure a million people said it before him.

[Jayson]

I’ll chime in on this one again.
I’m with Felix here, but I get even more specific and assert the following:
Spirituality is a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.

Another way of putting that is that human spirituality is biologically a human’s familiarization of existence and existing with their sensation of their relationship with existence and existing.

And this is probably why many people feel that it is pointless or offensive to force religious views upon others.
It’s also why someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson can claim to be a spiritual person due to a derivative impulse of witnessing the cosmos and our place in them, as equally as the Dali Lama can claim to be a spiritual person due to derivative impulses of experiencing devote meditative states chronically.

[statiktech]

@felix dakat

@statiktech

Felix,

So then spirituality is a set of beliefs rather than a state of being?

No, I didn’t mean to imply that nor do I believe it. So, the essence of religion is not a set of beliefs. It is an experience of power beyond what we know or understand.

I was just going by definition on religion. I’m not saying that’s all religion is, but I think it is the foundation. However, you seem to be saying that spirituality has no such foundation, so I don’t really get how you can say the two are essentially the same. I also don’t think spirituality is brought on by an experience of power so much as the experience of awe.

[statiktech]

@Jayson

I’ll chime in on this one again.
I’m with Felix here, but I get even more specific and assert the following:
Spirituality is a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.

Another way of putting that is that human spirituality is biologically a human’s familiarization of existence and existing with their sensation of their relationship with existence and existing.

So you think everyone is spiritual per biology? I think you’re getting more toward what I think spirituality is, which is just feelings of reverence and awe. My question is why do such feelings need to be given mystical connotations?

[Flannel_Jesus]

Maybe it’s a language game, a trick. If most of your powerful experiences have the term ‘spirit’ in them, then you start associating emotionally powerful experiences with spirits. And then, like so many mystics, you start thinking that to believe that the world doesn’t have spirits is to be in a world devoid of hope or meaning or lots of good things.

Just a theory I came up with on the spot. But it makes a bit of sense, imo. We always here religious people or mystical people, etc, talking about how empty the world must be for an atheist, or for someone without ‘faith’, or someone without a religion or whatever. Maybe they get that idea of ‘emptiness’ simply because the term ‘spiritual’ is tied in with so many of their most profound experiences, so to remove belief in spirits is to live without profound experiences.

But of course they’re wrong, you can live in a world without spirits and have many powerful and profound experiences. The world is not empty for atheists. We just don’t tie in those experiences with the idea of a ‘spirit’.

[Jayson]

@statiktech

So you think everyone is spiritual per biology?

Yes.

My question is why do such feelings need to be given mystical connotations?

They don’t, but the sensation of awe typically comes from something which has some caliber of unknowing to it and the existential nature of relating in familiarity with existence and existing typically causes some fascination reverentially in sensation that lacks direct articulation on point - “mystical”.

[Jayson]

Flannel,

If most of your powerful experiences have the term ‘spirit’ in them, then you start associating emotionally powerful experiences with spirits.

This is not my application of the term, nor the intention.

It would make little sense for me to state spirituality is a biological function and then derive from that that such experiences are thereby interactions with supernatural beings of some formation.

But I do think you are on point for the semantic criticism of the adherence of spiritualism (which, personally, I think should be named, spiritism and not spiritualism), which is a belief in spirits and the reverence of relating to them.
Such an adherent claiming to be spiritual could cause confusion, intended or not (though, it should be noted that they can easily also be spiritual, but their metaphysical conception will likely not be evidently understood without further articulation).

[Bob]

@derleydoo

John White: What is Spirituality?
Level by level of reality, we can define spirituality like this:

In physical terms, it is recognising the mystery and miracle of the creative source behind matter.
In biological times, it is realizing that a divine intelligence lies behind all life-change, evolving creation to ever-greater degrees of wholeness and perfection.
In psychological terms, it is discovering within yourself the ultimate source of meaning and happiness.
In sociological terms, it is giving selfless service to others, regardless of race, creed, colour, gender, caste of nationality.
In ecological terms, it is showing respect for all kingdoms in the community of life–mineral, vegetable, animal, human and spirit.
In cosmological terms, it is being at one with the universe, in tune with the infinite, flowing with the Tao.
In theological terms, it is seeing God in all things, all events and circumstances, indwelling as infinite light and unconditional love.

I don’t know who John White is but I quite like this definition because it shows that spirituality is many things and yet it defies the “little boxes” we like to put things in. On the other hand, it does also show that there are different levels of being and being spiritual means different things in different circumstances.

Having said that, there are various aspects which need looking at – for example what is “matter” really? Is divine intelligence still the mystery mentioned above, or is some defined deity meant? I also have a few problems feeling at one with the universe – albeit I know that I am made of the stuff of the universe. And again, is the “God” in all things a specific deity or the mystery of before?