If you weren’t with the person you love, then you would not have an emotional disposition towards anything relating to them either; yet you are, and you do.
I think the question is valid.
I didn’t posit the question in regards to validation of your existence.
I posited the question regarding how you emotionally feel in disposition about existing.
But I could have that emotional disposition towards someone else. Likewise, the relationship could sour and my love could turn to hate. Or I could love them and not be with them. Or I could be with them but not in love with them. A variety of different conditions exist here so how we feel about any of them can be measured based off those other positions. For example, right now I am very happy that my girlfriend and I really get each other and have a very caring relationship as opposed to other relationships I’ve had where they have become stale and while we “got along” it was less a “romantic relationship” and more a “roommate”-type situation. That sort of experience gives perspective to that sort of question. Since I can’t experience non-existence (indeed, that very statement is borderline nonsensical) I’m not sure how to take the question.
I’m still not sure what is meant by the question. Could you phrase it another way? Otherwise, all I can answer is what I’ve already said (that the question doesn’t make sense) or “good, I guess” because I lead a pretty awesome life. If I were a Darfur war orphan or a Chinese coal miner, I imagine I’d answer with, “fucking terrible”. Not that people in terrible situations can’t find meaning, indeed they often do. That is an area where this sort of “spirituality” might make some degree of sense because it wards off the terribleness of life. But if life is awesome, then that sort of thing seems pretty useless.
Yes.
This is my demonstration.
That is something that you have in relationship to existence as well, not with just other people.
This is exactly the concept involved.
The only difference is that existing for you may possibly only arrive as a concept of singularity.
I’m fairly sure such is the case with most people; only some appear to sense their lives as departmentalized separations similar to the identity separation of one person from another person. I know of one such person as this here locally; he fascinates me.
But you could easily be what I believe is the average; in possession of the singularity, rather than the plurality, perception.
If so, then this:
Would not be the angle to approach the issue, as you are not separating differing sections of your life into separate stark identifications as if they are separate individual concepts, but instead running all of it together in tandem as one identity.
This means that your relationship with existence as an emotional experience would be akin to your relationship with yourself as an emotional experience.
What I mean by this is that you are thinking of the question as if you have other existences as an option when you clearly do not think in such terms.
But instead, what I’m asking about is in regards to your ontological outlook; specifically, how that makes you feel.
Some people see existence by a fact of existentialism, others by fact of nihilism (it really doesn’t matter), others by fact of metaphysical existence, others by fact of holistic existence.
As you are familiar with, there are many variations that I did not list; those are just example concepts.
Everyone at some point generally thinks about what they think about existing, and that depends on which manner they perceive how they exist (existentially, nihilistically, metaphysically, holistically, dualistically, etc…, etc…).
Rather than being interested in whether is “right” or not, I’m asking how you feel about in regards to your existence as you conceive of that.
Does that help clarify the question?
But my roles are my identifier. In the capacity of different roles I am a different person.
For most people, yes.
The question is in regards of your role to yourself collectively, yet as you are now.
Does that help?
No.
Let me try a different phrasing.
What ontology or philosophy would you say is your perspective in general on existing?
Existentialism, holism, etc…?
Neo-xinxue.
But I’ll use Tu Weiming as a good cross-over position because he embraces many aspects of neo-xinxue (while phrasing them in language acceptable to neo-lixue/Youlanian Confucianism) while fusing them with Kirkegaardian Existentialism.
Only I reject how he embraces the Kirkegaardian notion of free choice and the individual. His work on those areas, showing that they don’t really exist, are nice – but his bit about how we should still care about them isn’t.
Alright, now how do you feel about that conceptual disposition on existing?
I’m still not sure what you mean. Can you phrase it another way? It is akin to asking how I feel about eating. The question is so broad that I can’t make proper sense of it.
You know what you think philosophically. How do you feel about the fact that this is what you think?
We’ll start there perhaps.
Metaphors are fine translation of emotion, so if similarity has to be used to explain how you feel, go for it.
Hi, I was editing my post. Lemme post the edit:
That is when I went back to grab another bit of this thread and saw that you replied. Hopefully that helps refine my position somewhat.
A little meta for my taste, but I’m often conflicted. As a modern scientist, it makes sense that I ought be drawn to the Daoxue tradition within Orthodox Confucianism. Go from Zhu Xi to Feng Youlan to various modern serious Confucian thinkers. Or perhaps wander off into heterodox Xunzianism and its modern iterations so carefully molded to modern tastes and assumptions. I certainly take from both those but I find myself most enjoying the likes of Yangming, Shili and Weiming. So I’m left trying to synthesis a variety of, frankly, silly beliefs which I thoroughly enjoy studying with substantially more sensible beliefs that I find less joy in. That means I am constantly shifting and refining my views and engaging in a struggle with minds infinitely superior to my own. Because of that, I don’t know what I think philosophically. I know what I enjoy philosophically and I occupy a variety of roles that encumber particular relationships with reality. Philosophically “knowing” lies in reconciling these aspects and is an amorphous affair.
Let me ask this way. Would you say you feel conflicted when you ponder your life and your living that life?
Not at all. I feel pretty awesome about that and devoid of conflict.
Perfect, then that would extend outward as how you feel about existing.
Presumably, your perception of reality would be carried out with this sensation.
So your sense of existence would be in the positive range of emotions; one rooted in grand pleasure, and/or grand awe, in the way that reality is delivered to your perception (how you “see” reality; existence; existing).
I’m not sure it is as conscious as that. I’m generally not thinking or feeling much at all. Just sorta doing my thing. It results in a contented life and I would say I’ve got my fair share of positive emotions but I’m not sure ‘awe’ really covers it either. More like the pleasant buzz of a few beers (which is also a fairly normal psychological state for me).
But for the moment, let’s run with what you’ve got there. How does that tie into or validate the concept of spirituality?
Spirituality, if you boil it down, is just an term of existential emotion and we tend to most often express that range of emotion via ontological methods.
And I wouldn’t expect you to overtly be standing around all the time like Bill and Ted chanting, “Whoa!”, everywhere.
A spiritual emotion of awe and gratitude would trickle up to the cognitive layers much in the way you are stating; generally pleased typically. And the spiritual emotions aren’t really something we pay much attention to; they are more just implicit emotions that augment our more immediate emotional response ranges.
For instance, your spiritual disposition of emotional awe and gratitude causes it to be unlikely for you to be explosively angry to people quite often.
Meanwhile, someone with spiritual unrest of ennui can end up quite more easily agitated at the same scenarios and push people away as a result.
shrug
It’s not earth shattering thinking; it’s just more saying that what you feel as a “blank slate” (aside from direct context) is a spiritual stance; as that is what religion and spiritual practices ontologically attempt to shift or augment in some fashion - to change your disposition.
That post didn’t really justify spirituality. I’m still unconvinced that spirituality isn’t a meaningless buzzword designed to make people feel good. I mean, you mention that we don’t pay attention to them. Likewise, I’d argue (as would several of my hopefully-still friends and ex-friends) that I’m hardly immune to bouts of anger. The predictive aspect of your hypothesis seems pretty weak. Maybe I’m an outlier, but (once again, anecdotally), I’d actually construct the opposite paradigm. I generally figure that people work at fixing their deficiency. I’d expect a person who is unhappy and wrathful to be very nice and sociable if they are engaged in proper self-cultivation. A happy, relaxed person is much more likely to let an angry outburst slip because they aren’t looking for it.
But really, what does spirituality mean that it warrants its own word? Is it a case of everyone being a zombie to some degree, that is, we all engage in unconscious behavior and this habit makes up most of our lives? Is that what spirituality is? I’m fine with that definition but I don’t think I could replace that easily into most documents using the term “spirituality” and maintain author-intent.
Let me put it this way; the basic bottom line of the raw definition of Spiritual is Spirit, which is - when you remove all context of clergy, etc… from it - a term that means affecting the soul.
That’s a long discussion, but essentially, you could summarize spiritual up in one other word:
Reverent.
They are typically one in the same; the gradient of reverence is essentially the same discussion as what it is to be spiritual.
The only difference is the idol of the words in our minds.
I could as easily walk around talking about natural reverent disposition on existing as I could state that as spiritual.
The functional difference is that saying spirituality refers to the state of being spiritual; it is something that our language allows a person to “have” as an existence; where as reverence doesn’t really have a “state of” being.
It just has a state of holding.
The closest thing in English would be, “That was a very reverential experience.”
As compared to, “That was a very spiritual experience.”
But when you say, “I live a life focused upon our spirituality.”
It is harder to convey otherwise, “I live a life focused upon our reverence.”
OK, but that second line is finite, whereas the word, “spirituality”, is an infinate clause openly of just a “state of being”; again, reverence just ends up sounding completed; finished.
Spirituality is open and held in the infinite.
But at its root, the word refers to breath.
It’s a word rooted in ontology.
Reverence, is more a form of action.
So when we say the word of spirituality, or spirit; we’re essentially referring to the existential condition of our ontological state of being; breathing…as a human.
As to the first part of your response; I was generalizing, but I don’t think I’m that far off.
I have serious doubts that you regularly fly off the handle at people with a perspective of your own existence that is appeased.
Buddha wasn’t renowned for being an angry tyrannical asshole due to finding appeasement with his self.
So . . . spirituality is reverence without an object?
I still don’t get it.
Why not talk about the particular relationships where reverence is involved?