Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on December 23, 2016, 09:24:52 AM
-
Hi everyone,
What is Life? I don't mean this in the sense of a 'meaning to life' or 'a purpose to life'. I mean..actually what is Life?
1. Scientists believe Life is a product or result of certain molecules getting organised together. Some molecules come together and suddenly..we have life. It is an Emergent Property.
2. Certain religious people believe that Life is something breathed into the body by God.
3. Some people equate Life with Consciousness.
The only organism that is somewhere in between the living and the non living is the virus. A virus is non living in the free state...but when it finds a host it suddenly starts behaving like a living being.
Hindus and some other people believe that Life is Prana or Chi.....a form of energy that is present everywhere and which is acquired by organisms which then become living beings. When the prana leaves the organism it becomes dead. As the Prana reduces, a person becomes old and ill.
In fact, the word for Life in Sanskrit, Hindi and other Indian languages is Prana.
Prana can be seen as something like electricity. Almost all man made equipment are driven by electricity....which gives life to them and without which the equipment is dead.
This Life or Prana is said to be present everywhere all around us and when certain type of organisms form, Life enters and make its a living being as different from a non living object.
Objectively, nothing is known about this Prana, but subjectively, many people can and do control its flow in their system. Illnesses can be cured, the mind can be controlled, general activity can be enhanced and so on, through the regulation of Prana.
Most Yogic, Pranayama and meditative practices are based on the regulation and control of Prana.
For information.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
When the prana leaves the organism it becomes dead.
Does that mean that technically, after a chicken has been beheaded, plucked, gutted and the parts all chopped up ready for dinner and put into the pot and boiled for 30 mins -
if the prana hasn't left, it is still alive?
-
Sriram,
thanks for your amusing post , you do make me laugh . :)
-
Hi everyone,
What is Life? I don't mean this in the sense of a 'meaning to life' or 'a purpose to life'. I mean..actually what is Life?
1. Scientists believe Life is a product or result of certain molecules getting organised together. Some molecules come together and suddenly..we have life. It is an Emergent Property.
2. Certain religious people believe that Life is something breathed into the body by God.
3. Some people equate Life with Consciousness.
The only organism that is somewhere in between the living and the non living is the virus. A virus is non living in the free state...but when it finds a host it suddenly starts behaving like a living being.
Hindus and some other people believe that Life is Prana or Chi.....a form of energy that is present everywhere and which is acquired by organisms which then become living beings. When the prana leaves the organism it becomes dead. As the Prana reduces, a person becomes old and ill.
In fact, the word for Life in Sanskrit, Hindi and other Indian languages is Prana.
Prana can be seen as something like electricity. Almost all man made equipment are driven by electricity....which gives life to them and without which the equipment is dead.
This Life or Prana is said to be present everywhere all around us and when certain type of organisms form, Life enters and make its a living being as different from a non living object.
Objectively, nothing is known about this Prana, but subjectively, many people can and do control its flow in their system. Illnesses can be cured, the mind can be controlled, general activity can be enhanced and so on, through the regulation of Prana.
Most Yogic, Pranayama and meditative practices are based on the regulation and control of Prana.
For information.
Cheers.
Sriram
I don't think we have an all-embracing definition. I'd go with something along the lines of a phenomenon of replicating evolving metabolism. Not all life is conscious but all life metabolises, all life replicates, and all life evolves.
-
I don't care how anyone defines life - I'm just very glad to still have it! :)
-
I don't think we have an all-embracing definition. I'd go with something along the lines of a phenomenon of replicating evolving metabolism. Not all life is conscious but all life metabolises, all life replicates, and all life evolves.
Life first started with the replicating DNA/RNA. That is the beginning of the survival instinct that is an essential part of all Life. From this survival instinct, were probably derived the procreation and parental instincts.
The question is, why did Life first begin? We have no means of knowing for sure, of course. Merely saying that replication is an emergent property of DNA is a cop out. It is just an observation...and does not explain anything.
We cannot also be sure if the DNA replication happened only in one place and one time, from where it spread all around the world...or whether similar replication happened in many places around the world.
Be that as it may, it is possible (philosophically) to meaningfully speculate that something reacted or entered or coupled with the DNA/RNA and made it behave in the way it did. From there Life started.
This something is what we call Prana....a kind of Life globule (containing some form of energy) that is believed to exist everywhere and which makes life prevail. It makes Life always find a way!
Of course, lots of questions can be asked about the nature of the Prana, its chemical composition, where did it come from, how and why does it enter organic matter, why not inorganic matter...and so on and so forth. There are no answers.
The point is that this idea not only attempts an answer to the question of how Life came about ...but that it also explains many forms of healing, health generating techniques etc. like Yoga, Pranayama (breathing exercises) and meditations which are are all based on an understanding of how this Prana works and moves around the body. And all these techniques work!
I remember that Neil Tyson the astrophysicist was recently asked whether Life could exist in an amorphous form. He said that it is possible.
It is time scientists started thinking laterally and started investigating such matters.
Just some thoughts.
-
I don't care how anyone defines life - I'm just very glad to still have it! :)
Me too SD . I thought it was curtains for me at the end of august . ;D
-
Sri,
even more amusing than the OP , thanks again.
btw if you really want to know read some science books, I cant be bothered explaining it to you . It would be like trying to teach a potato.
-
Life first started with the replicating DNA/RNA. That is the beginning of the survival instinct that is an essential part of all Life. From this survival instinct, were probably derived the procreation and parental instincts.
OK, but 'instincts' are way up to ladder of biological complexity. You need a sizeable brain for inherited instincts and the vast majority of life, being microbial, has no brains and hence no instincts.
-
OK, but 'instincts' are way up to ladder of biological complexity. You need a sizeable brain for inherited instincts and the vast majority of life, being microbial, has no brains and hence no instincts.
An instinct is only an innate impulse or inclination or tendency. Why isn't the DNA tendency to replicate, an 'instinct'? Do Jellyfish have brains? Don't they have instincts?
-
Me too SD . I thought it was curtains for me at the end of august . ;D
Have you posted anywhere what actually happened? Whatever it was, it must have been a very nasty shock.
-
Have you posted anywhere what actually happened? Whatever it was, it must have been a very nasty shock.
No I haven't SD, and for the second time in my life I have cheated the grim reaper , not sure how many lives I've got left now though, I must be running low on luck now.
-
An instinct is only an innate impulse or inclination or tendency. Why isn't the DNA tendency to replicate, an 'instinct'? Do Jellyfish have brains? Don't they have instincts?
If we call the DNA tendency to replicate, an 'instinct', then we are making figurative use of language. Language is like that, messy, full of redundancies and multiple creative interpretations. If we stick to the stricter use of the word, such as 'mothering instinct' we are describing inherited behaviours of higher animals which of course don't exist as such at the simpler level of chemical reactions.
-
The question is, why did Life first begin? We have no means of knowing for sure, of course. Merely saying that replication is an emergent property of DNA is a cop out. It is just an observation...and does not explain anything.
I don't see why 'cop out'. Replication is one of the key characteristics of life but it is not only living systems that replicate. Spontaneous self organisation and replication are phenomena arising out of thermodynamic law; matter self-organises and replicates to maximise the efficiency of its energy exchange with its environment whilst guaranteeing an increase rather than a decrease in overall entropy.
We cannot also be sure if the DNA replication happened only in one place and one time, from where it spread all around the world...or whether similar replication happened in many places around the world.
DNA replication has replaced the earlier and simpler RNA replication which preceded it but RNA is outperformed by the greater efficiency and information carrying potential in DNA strands. This is all part of a trajectory within chemical evolution that will occur wherever candidate compounds exist within appropriate conditions leading from simple organics through eventually to complex biological systems. Thus we expect to find simple biology widespread throughout the cosmos as chemistry inevitably has to lead to biology wherever appropriate conditions exist. Higher phenomena - multicellularity, intelligence, consciousness for example will be massively rare though.
-
No I haven't SD, and for the second time in my life I have cheated the grim reaper , not sure how many lives I've got left now though, I must be running low on luck now.
Thank you for reply - I hope you do not have to risk any more lives/!
-
This something is what we call Prana....a kind of Life globule (containing some form of energy) that is believed to exist everywhere and which makes life prevail. It makes Life always find a way!
Of course, lots of questions can be asked about the nature of the Prana, its chemical composition, where did it come from, how and why does it enter organic matter, why not inorganic matter...and so on and so forth. There are no answers.
The point is that this idea not only attempts an answer to the question of how Life came about ...but that it also explains many forms of healing, health generating techniques etc. like Yoga, Pranayama (breathing exercises) and meditations which are are all based on an understanding of how this Prana works and moves around the body. And all these techniques work!
I would put that down as a nice simple allegorical notion for a pre-science age. Given we know far more about the actual processes of life I'm not sure of the value of it in the modern age. Maybe it is good enough metaphor for people not interested in nuts and bolts, which is most people, I guess.
-
I want to know how to tell if my chicken dinner is still alive or not. It's well cold now. Will microwaving it get rid of any residual prana or not?
-
Life? Don't talk to me about life...........
-
I want to know how to tell if my chicken dinner is still alive or not. It's well cold now. Will microwaving it get rid of any residual prana or not?
'Prana' is just a word...Sebastian. It is sanskrit for 'Life'. If the electricity from your equipment is cut off, the equipment dies. Its the same with the body of any organism.
Prana or Life is the essential difference between the living and the dead. Only that instead of thinking of it as the result of some sort of molecular organisation...it is thought of as an independent energy that interacts with molecules at a certain stage to make them 'living'.
So...go ahead with your chicken! :)
-
If we call the DNA tendency to replicate, an 'instinct', then we are making figurative use of language. Language is like that, messy, full of redundancies and multiple creative interpretations. If we stick to the stricter use of the word, such as 'mothering instinct' we are describing inherited behaviours of higher animals which of course don't exist as such at the simpler level of chemical reactions.
Instinct ...'Innate tendency or inclination'... is the dictionary definition. You can't cherry pick your definitions.
DNA has this tendency to replicate, which you label as Emergent Property. It could be because of some form of Life energy that enters or interacts with the DNA at this stage giving it this property of Life....which automatically means instinct of survival and replication.
As the organism becomes complex, the instincts are exhibited in more complex ways.
-
I would put that down as a nice simple allegorical notion for a pre-science age. Given we know far more about the actual processes of life I'm not sure of the value of it in the modern age. Maybe it is good enough metaphor for people not interested in nuts and bolts, which is most people, I guess.
There is nothing allegorical about Prana or Life. It is about an actual energy packet that interacts with molecules and organisms.
What does science know of the processes of life that prohibits a Life energy?
-
There is nothing allegorical about Prana or Life. It is about an actual energy packet that interacts with molecules and organisms.
What does science know of the processes of life that prohibits a Life energy?
Well the concept of Prana is just surplus to requirements, in a sense. We already have concepts developed from base energy laws that serve more faithfully to observation. We don't need a special new form of energy that is applicable to just living systems; as you yourself recognise with a brief mention of viruses, the traditional black and white division of things into living things and non-living things is a simplification, so a conceptual framework of understanding that transcends the artificial distinction between animate and inanimate is superior.
-
Instinct ...'Innate tendency or inclination'... is the dictionary definition. You can't cherry pick your definitions.
DNA has this tendency to replicate, which you label as Emergent Property. It could be because of some form of Life energy that enters or interacts with the DNA at this stage giving it this property of Life....which automatically means instinct of survival and replication.
As the organism becomes complex, the instincts are exhibited in more complex ways.
And innate means 'born with', and no molecules are 'born' in a strict sense. This is just perpetuating the use of metaphor.
I didn't label replication as an emergent property, I said it was an inevitability due to thermodynamic law. The second law of thermodynamics is possibly the most profound of all natural laws, from it springs all manner of more complex observed phenomena such as spontaneous self organisation and replication and hence life.
-
I don't care how anyone defines life - I'm just very glad to still have it! :)
You are so lucky to feel that way, Susan.
-
Life? Don't talk to me about life...........
A man after my own heart. Today at least.
Bah humbug.
-
T'was a Marvin moment, Brownie!
-
Life? Don't talk to me about life...........
Frank Sinatra sings a lovely song about it , have a listen . All your questions answered Sri!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAA67a2-Klk
-
Instinct ...'Innate tendency or inclination'... is the dictionary definition. You can't cherry pick your definitions.
DNA has this tendency to replicate, which you label as Emergent Property. It could be because of some form of Life energy that enters or interacts with the DNA at this stage giving it this property of Life....which automatically means instinct of survival and replication.
As the organism becomes complex, the instincts are exhibited in more complex ways.
stop guessing and read some science books on the subject , no magic involved, then you can stop with all this ridiculous nonsense, please .
The reality is far more impressive than this woo woo crap !
-
stop guessing and read some science books on the subject , no magic involved, then you can stop with all this ridiculous nonsense, please .
The reality is far more impressive than this woo woo crap !
I agree that we don't want any magic, Walter, but I suspect that reality is really massively more impressive than anything you can come up with.
-
Well the concept of Prana is just surplus to requirements, in a sense. We already have concepts developed from base energy laws that serve more faithfully to observation. We don't need a special new form of energy that is applicable to just living systems; as you yourself recognise with a brief mention of viruses, the traditional black and white division of things into living things and non-living things is a simplification, so a conceptual framework of understanding that transcends the artificial distinction between animate and inanimate is superior.
torridon,
Actually, Prana is present in all objects animate and inanimate. It is the movement and manner in which it presents itself that makes the difference between living and non living beings. Just as electrons are present everywhere but their specific movement produces what we call electricity, which supplies power to our equipmet.
-
Hi everyone,
Ok...I think I will take this to the next level.
Life Energy or Prana is a very fundamental and common concept in India and other countries like China, Japan etc. It is Life energy which is present everywhere and in everything, both living and non living objects. Its the movement that makes the difference.
As I have said earlier, objectively nothing is known about Prana...but subjectively it has been known and used for thousands of years. It is mentioned in the Vedas and Upanishads and later in Jain and Buddhist literature.
Most esoteric practices like Yoga, Pranayama, healing etc. involve the regulation and control of Prana. Practices like Tai chi, Reiki and faith healing and also martial arts... involve the regulation of Prana. Most chantings, rituals and prayers also involve regulating Prana in some form.
The biofield or aura is nothing but Prana in various forms moving in and around the body. Our mind is also composed of prana.
This movement of this Life energy around the body makes it form vortices or wheels in many places around the body. These are called Chakras. We have major Chakras around the crown, the forehead, throat, heart, solar plexus, sex area and lower spine...besides almost all other areas where minor vortices are found.
The cleaning, energizing and regulation of the prana around the many chakras is what helps in maintaining good health, healthy mind, peace etc. Pranic healing, reiki etc. are useful techniques for maintaining good health and a peaceful mind (especially for sensitive people). Especially in mental problems, depression etc,.... these methods that heal chakras and regulate prana are very useful.
Many people in India and other countries use these techniques as complimentary to normal medicines. For mental problems...these methods are found to be more useful than medicines.
When you feel love for someone the sudden feeling of elation in the heart is the Heart Charkra expanding. When you feel fear, it is the heart and navel chakras getting depleted. When you feel jealousy it is the Solar plexus chakra getting depleted....and so on. Different colours are also associated with different chakras.
The esoteric Tree of Life in the Kabbala is also similar to the Yogic chakra system.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
prove it or shut up
merry Christmas !
-
I agree that we don't want any magic, Walter, but I suspect that reality is really massively more impressive than anything you can come up with.
your suspicions are simply that ,Hope.
your understanding of reality is comparable to that of a witch doctor . Remove the woo from your mind and start thinking, you will amaze yourself .
merry Christmas to you and yours
-
prove it or shut up
merry Christmas !
Well that's the end of R & E and every other religion forum then :D
-
I agree that we don't want any magic, Walter, but I suspect that reality is really massively more impressive than anything you can come up with.
Of course, to find out what reality actually is (if it's impressive or not is purely subjective opinion), we need a consistently reliable methodology to do the job.
I can help you there ;)
-
Well that's the end of R & E and every other religion forum then :D
Too right !
-
Don't you at least find it interesting, Walter?
I find all of Sririam's threads absolutely fascinating!
You probably think I'm bonkers - hee hee, I don't care.
-
Don't you at least find it interesting, Walter?
I find all of Sririam's threads absolutely fascinating!
You probably think I'm bonkers - hee hee, I don't care.
Brownie,
Thanks for that.... :)
The problem is that many people have this black and white view of the world. They have two boxes in their mind. One which they associate with Science and the other that they associate with Religion. They will dump everything in either one of the two boxes. Accept one blindly and reject the other blindly.
They have to realize that all phenomena don't fit in either of the two boxes. It is a spectrum...and many things fall outside both boxes.
Secondly, many people (especially in the west) don't realize that all things that don't fit into Science need not be associated with religion. Religion is an entirely different institution and the things I write about are not religious concepts (though they may have links with it). The difference between secular spirituality and religion is only just beginning to be understood in the west. It will take some more time.
Thirdly, many people have this fixation with proof and evidence....which of course they demand in sensory terms. Many real phenomena can be experienced and even used and worked with without any external sensory understanding of them.
But then, we are fresh from the scientific revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries. Many people are yet to get over it. I am sure it will happen in the coming generations....when science will be seen as just one branch or subset of philosophy and as just one means to knowledge besides others.
It is only through an integration of all experiences and all inputs that life can be understood...to some extent.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Brownie,
Thanks for that.... :)
The problem is that many people have this black and white view of the world. They have two boxes in their mind. One which they associate with Science and the other that they associate with Religion. They will dump everything in either one of the two boxes. Accept one blindly and reject the other blindly.
They have to realize that all phenomena don't fit in either of the two boxes. It is a spectrum...and many things fall outside both boxes.
Secondly, many people (especially in the west) don't realize that all things that don't fit into Science need not be associated with religion. Religion is an entirely different institution and the things I write about are not religious concepts (though they may have links with it). The difference between secular spirituality and religion is only just beginning to be understood in the west. It will take some more time.
Thirdly, many people have this fixation with proof and evidence....which of course they demand in sensory terms. Many real phenomena can be experienced and even used and worked with without any external sensory understanding of them.
But then, we are fresh from the scientific revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries. Many people are yet to get over it. I am sure it will happen in the coming generations....when science will be seen as just one branch or subset of philosophy and as just one means to knowledge besides others.
It is only through an integration of all experiences and all inputs that life can be understood...to some extent.
Cheers.
Sriram
I'd go along with the view of science being a tool, a tool with which to garner understanding about how things work. If it has become 'fixated' with evidence that is a measure of the discipline that we have had to learn to get truthfully to the bottom of things. 'Does it stand up to testing' has been an invaluable yardstick. If we give up that level of rigour then science will become less successful, that is all. This has been a learning curve for humans; we do not naturally think rationally, it is a discipline we are trying to instill against our inherited nature which is chock full of legacy biases accumulated on our journey from dumb ape to sapient self aware beings. Ritualistic behaviours and superstitious beliefs might be the vestigial legacy of earlier archaic forms of consciousness that we are leaving behind gradually as we rise to the challenge to learn to think more clearly and more truthfully.
-
I'd go along with the view of science being a tool, a tool with which to garner understanding about how things work. If it has become 'fixated' with evidence that is a measure of the discipline that we have had to learn to get truthfully to the bottom of things. 'Does it stand up to testing' has been an invaluable yardstick. If we give up that level of rigour then science will become less successful, that is all. This has been a learning curve for humans; we do not naturally think rationally, it is a discipline we are trying to instill against our inherited nature which is chock full of legacy biases accumulated on our journey from dumb ape to sapient self aware beings. Ritualistic behaviours and superstitious beliefs might be the vestigial legacy of earlier archaic forms of consciousness that we are leaving behind gradually as we rise to the challenge to learn to think more clearly and more truthfully.
You are again doing exactly what I mentioned above. Two boxes. Many people during that period seem to have been programmed that way and can't seem to help it.
-
Don't you at least find it interesting, Walter?
I find all of Sririam's threads absolutely fascinating!
You probably think I'm bonkers - hee hee, I don't care.
nope, not I the slightest . I find it extremely irritating that an adult can harbour such childish whimsical beliefs while at the same time there are people endeavouring to explain the workings of the universe to us all. And others who work in the field of medicine developing techniques and medicines that will improve our life chances , even for people with ridiculous beliefs such as Sriram should they ever need them.
-
Life, something precious.
🌹
-
I find it extremely irritating that an adult can harbour such childish whimsical beliefs while at the same time there are people endeavouring to explain the workings of the universe to us all. And others who work in the field of medicine developing techniques and medicines that will improve our life chances , even for people with ridiculous beliefs such as Sriram should they ever need them.
Hear hear.
-
An instinct is only an innate impulse or inclination or tendency. Why isn't the DNA tendency to replicate, an 'instinct'? Do Jellyfish have brains? Don't they have instincts?
That's just chemistry
-
And others who work in the field of medicine developing techniques and medicines that will improve our life chances ,
... and not forgetting those who work in the field of armaments developing techniques and weapons that will improve out death chances.
-
... and not forgetting those who work in the field of armaments developing techniques and weapons that will improve out death chances.
why mention that?
-
why mention that?
Because part of the philosophy which Sriram tries to introduce to this site is about ways of transcending the human psychological state as well as improving the well being of the human physical body. Scientific investigation is neutral but human motivation is not so neutral and in the spirit of life enhancement it doesn't do any harm to mention the negative aspect as well as the positive so that scientific progress is not seen through rose tinted glasses.
-
nope, not I the slightest . I find it extremely irritating that an adult can harbour such childish whimsical beliefs while at the same time there are people endeavouring to explain the workings of the universe to us all. And others who work in the field of medicine developing techniques and medicines that will improve our life chances , even for people with ridiculous beliefs such as Sriram should they ever need them.
Well said.
-
Because part of the philosophy which Sriram tries to introduce to this site is about ways of transcending the human psychological state [...]
A philosophy (I use the word loosely) clearly underpinned by his patent and almost phobic aversion to the animality or animal-hood or animal-ness of the human species, the desire to get away from our status as one of millions of species of creature on the planet.
-
... and not forgetting those who work in the field of armaments developing techniques and weapons that will improve out death chances.
...which people do merely in order to turn a profit, not because they are "endeavouring to explain the workings of the universe to us all." So, like Walter, I fail to see the relevance.
-
A philosophy (I use the word loosely) clearly underpinned by his patent aversion to the animality or animal-hood or animal-ness of the human species, the desire to get away from our status as one of millions of species of creature on the planet.
Yes, I'd see Sriram's concept of spiritual evolution - a progression from a base nature through successive reincarnations towards a higher nature - as a metaphor for distancing us from our (distasteful) animal nature. I'd see this as an Eastern equivalent of the Judeochristian doctrine of salvation which could be seen as a metaphor for our being rescued from our animal nature and blessed with a divine nature instead. I think it one of humanity's deepest psychological discomfitures to recognise our animal nature, we'd really rather forget about it, it is a source of embarrassment and humiliation. Many old world religions (and new ones) are popular because they act as constructs to serve our twin denials (the other being mortality).
-
I think it one of humanity's deepest psychological discomfitures to recognise our animal nature, we'd really rather forget about it, it is a source of embarrassment and humiliation.
To Sriram, certainly; he can't prevent this embarrassment and humiliation from colouring his writing often.
Not everyone feels the same way, however; and I'd go so far as to suggest that it's those amongst us who are informed about and literate in evolutionary biology to whatever degree, those who recognise the kinship and oneness of all life on Earth at a deep level, who are less likely to think in this (basically and fundamentally religious) manner and to regard life on Earth in the round with none of this "higher" and "lower" nonsense that even Darwin warned himself against in his notebooks.
Life, we can demonstrably know, is one. You either get on board with this fact, or you latch onto (or concoct) a personal mythology which gives you the permission you want to pretend otherwise.
-
You are again doing exactly what I mentioned above. Two boxes. Many people during that period seem to have been programmed that way and can't seem to help it.
Sriram
if you are genuinely interested in how the universe works why don't you start and study it properly. There is no hidden agenda , no one is trying to trick or fool you, there are no 'two boxes'. I admit sometimes it is very difficult to understand and requires a great deal of thinking to get your head round the complicated stuff but you don't even have to do the experiments or observe the sky yourself. Somebody has already done it for you.
Once you are familiar with how science works you can then maybe test the ideas you have by devising methods and experiments to evaluate them.
Any results you get can then be checked by other scientists to verify them. Or not.
You maybe onto something but until the experiments are done and the results are in you might as well piss into the wind.
-
Yes, I'd see Sriram's concept of spiritual evolution - a progression from a base nature through successive reincarnations towards a higher nature - as a metaphor for distancing us from our (distasteful) animal nature. I'd see this as an Eastern equivalent of the Judeochristian doctrine of salvation which could be seen as a metaphor for our being rescued from our animal nature and blessed with a divine nature instead. I think it one of humanity's deepest psychological discomfitures to recognise our animal nature, we'd really rather forget about it, it is a source of embarrassment and humiliation. Many old world religions (and new ones) are popular because they act as constructs to serve our twin denials (the other being mortality).
torridon,
Hinduism is probably the oldest 'religion' and philosophy that recognized the continuity between animals and humans. Hindus are not against nor antagonistic to animal life. Vegetarianism, respect for animals and other forms of life, ecological interdependence and so on are ingrained in Hindu life. Much of it is being recognized by the western world only now....who have otherwise treated animals as only accessories.
I have also mentioned many times the uncanny parallel between the Dasavatars and the Theory of Evolution.
(For those who haven't read that, it is available at https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/evolution-and-spirituality/ )
We believe that all humans were earlier born at various levels in the animal world as part of their spiritual development. It is a spectrum with the lowest forms of life at one end and humans at the other. Even among humans there is a spectrum with some near the animal level and some near the Divine level.
Our consciousness has developed only through this process. We cannot and should not go back to a lower level of consciousness...or equate ourselves with that.
It is like different classes at school. Once you are out of the primary school, you should stop behaving like primary school children. Merely because you were at one time a child you cannot continue to behave like one.
Hindus are not embarrassed of their animal past. Its all about moving forward instead of continuing to take our cue from the animal world. Continuing to associate with our earlier levels of consciousness is wrong and is considered as bad karma because it goes against the natural flow of life and its development.
So, the relationship of humans to animal life is nothing new in Hinduism and it was understood as a normal part of day to day life long before Charles Darwin. Spirituality is about developing and moving further.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
torridon,
On a second point, you really should stop treating ideas of spirituality as metaphors. You don't KNOW that! You just believe that.
The laws of science do not in any way prohibit spiritual development and evolution. Nor is there any conflict with the concept of Prana. They may conflict with certain religious mythological beliefs but the fundamentals of spiritual philosophy are very easily compatible with Science and its theories.
I mentioned the two boxes that many of you have in your minds. For a start you people should try introducing one more box into which you dump all those ideas and philosophies that are neither hardcore material science nor religious beliefs. It will broaden your outlook and help in assimilation of certain philosophies that you will find are quite enriching. Mainstream science is also spreading its tentacles into these areas lately.
Don't box yourselves in with only what hardcore material science has to offer. It only looks at one part of life. As I have mentioned elsewhere, spirituality is also a Science with its theory, methodologies and predictions. It works!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
torridon,
. As I have mentioned elsewhere, spirituality is also a Science with its theory, methodologies and predictions. It works!
prove it or stop lying
Cheers.
Sriram
-
A philosophy (I use the word loosely) clearly underpinned by his patent and almost phobic aversion to the animality or animal-hood or animal-ness of the human species, the desire to get away from our status as one of millions of species of creature on the planet.
I don't think Sriram's post 54 supports that view.
-
torridon,
Hinduism is probably the oldest 'religion' and philosophy that recognized the continuity between animals and humans. Hindus are not against nor antagonistic to animal life. Vegetarianism, respect for animals and other forms of life, ecological interdependence and so on are ingrained in Hindu life. Much of it is being recognized by the western world only now....who have otherwise treated animals as only accessories.
...
Yes, I accept that. By referencing christian salvation and Eastern spiritual development I think a common denominator of a desire to distance ourselves from our animal origins is something that is a subconscious human angst that is often repressed in a way that Freud would have recognised and the old world religions offer a narrative that justifies our journey out of the animal kingdom. I think this angst goes deeper than a merely religious phenomenon, I would suggest that humanism, essentially a derivative christian idea with god removed, often features a similar narrative in terms of the ascent of man, of secular progress, and a progress toward something is also a journey away from something less desirable, namely our 'base' animal past.
-
I don't think Sriram's post 54 supports that view.
I do - the fourth and fifth paragraphs, for example. Furthermore, a great many more of his posts do too. If I were on my laptop rather than my phone it would be a job of moments to collate all the references he has made to supposedly having to get away from (or rise above - there's definitely a higher-lower thing going on) our animal nature.
-
Yes, I accept that. By referencing christian salvation and Eastern spiritual development I think a common denominator of a desire to distance ourselves from our animal origins is something that is a subconscious human angst that is often repressed in a way that Freud would have recognised and the old world religions offer a narrative that justifies our journey out of the animal kingdom. I think this angst goes deeper than a merely religious phenomenon, I would suggest that humanism, essentially a derivative christian idea with god removed, often features a similar narrative in terms of the ascent of man, of secular progress, and a progress toward something is also a journey away from something less desirable, namely our 'base' animal past.
I seldom - hardly ever - quibble with anything in your posts, torridon, but I do wonder whether you have anything from the Humanists which implies that?
-
Yes, I accept that. By referencing christian salvation and Eastern spiritual development I think a common denominator of a desire to distance ourselves from our animal origins is something that is a subconscious human angst that is often repressed in a way that Freud would have recognised and the old world religions offer a narrative that justifies our journey out of the animal kingdom. I think this angst goes deeper than a merely religious phenomenon, I would suggest that humanism, essentially a derivative christian idea with god removed, often features a similar narrative in terms of the ascent of man, of secular progress, and a progress toward something is also a journey away from something less desirable, namely our 'base' animal past.
I've banged on about this before but I think the Axial Age religions, of which Sriram's 'spirituality' is one, are essentially a response to the psychological and social challenges of living with what we've come to call civilisation, which is founded upon the move from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to farming and a shift in perspective from being part of nature to waging war with it (and ultimately with ourselves). Civilisation thus came to be underpinned by a new three part narrative comprising the myths of human separation/isolation, centrality/specialness and progress/transcendence. The religions of the Axial Age (apart from the honourable exception of Daoism) simply took these myths as foundational and sought 'salvation' from the consequences of them through taking them to their logical extreme, which involved trying to 'overcome' our animal and material nature and connect instead with some kind of transcendent divinity/consciousness. The ecological (and indeed spiritual) damage this has caused is now plain to see and yet we plough on regardless, seeking ever new ways of realising our fantasies through technological progress. Many expressions of humanism (though not all) simply carry on with this where religion left off. It brings to mind the saying that insanity is keeping on doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
-
I've banged on about this before but I think the Axial Age religions, of which Sriram's 'spirituality' is one, are essentially a response to the psychological and social challenges of living with what we've come to call civilisation, which is founded upon the move from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to farming and a shift in perspective from being part of nature to waging war with it (and ultimately with ourselves). Civilisation thus came to be underpinned by a new three part narrative comprising the myths of human separation/isolation, centrality/specialness and progress/transcendence. The religions of the Axial Age (apart from the honourable exception of Daoism) simply took these myths as foundational and sought 'salvation' from the consequences of them through taking them to their logical extreme, which involved trying to 'overcome' our animal and material nature and connect instead with some kind of transcendent divinity/consciousness. The ecological (and indeed spiritual) damage this has caused is now plain to see and yet we plough on regardless, seeking ever new ways of realising our fantasies through technological progress. Many expressions of humanism (though not all) simply carry on with this where religion left off. It brings to mind the saying that insanity is keeping on doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
well you've got a lot of fancy sounding words in there but I haven't got a clue what you're on about.
I must have been off school that day !
-
Yes, I accept that. By referencing christian salvation and Eastern spiritual development I think a common denominator of a desire to distance ourselves from our animal origins is something that is a subconscious human angst that is often repressed in a way that Freud would have recognised and the old world religions offer a narrative that justifies our journey out of the animal kingdom. I think this angst goes deeper than a merely religious phenomenon, I would suggest that humanism, essentially a derivative christian idea with god removed, often features a similar narrative in terms of the ascent of man, of secular progress, and a progress toward something is also a journey away from something less desirable, namely our 'base' animal past.
Most of all...evolution is doing it! You missed that one. We ARE branching off from other animals (never mind what classification scientists label us with) ...and we are never going back. We ARE going to develop more and more our humanistic, intellectual, universal, cooperative attributes as we evolve.... which are all counter to the competitive and self oriented traits.
Our move towards humanism and civilization have been possible only due to the thrust on such qualities by religions over the centuries. As I have said in another thread on the role of religions, it is religions that have again and again emphasized altruism, cooperation, love, showing the other cheek, charity, patience and other such 'higher' level 'human' qualities.
So...its all matching up. Evolution, religions, spiritual theory, humanism, civilization ...they are all moving in tandem promoting the same set of qualities and eliminating the same set of qualities.
-
Most of all...evolution is doing it! You missed that one. We ARE branching off from other animals (never mind what classification scientists label us with) ...and we are never going back. We ARE going to develop more and more our humanistic, intellectual, universal, cooperative attributes as we evolve.... which are all counter to the competitive and self oriented traits.
It's the Great Chain of Being all over again ::)
Our move towards humanism and civilization have been possible only due to the thrust on such qualities by religions over the centuries. As I have said in another thread on the role of religions, it is religions that have again and again emphasized altruism, cooperation, love, showing the other cheek, charity, patience and other such 'higher' level 'human' qualities.
When they're not maiming, torturing and murdering, anyway ...
-
I do - the fourth and fifth paragraphs, for example. Furthermore, a great many more of his posts do too. If I were on my laptop rather than my phone it would be a job of moments to collate all the references he has made to supposedly having to get away from (or rise above - there's definitely a higher-lower thing going on) our animal nature.
I wouldn't class that as an "almost phobic aversion to the animality" though. I think that he's just passionate about man aspiring to rise above a psychological state partly derived from what is shared with the rest of the animal world. Anyway, enough about Sriram, he is quite capable of defending himself from any ad homina if he chooses to do so.
-
When they're not maiming, torturing and murdering, anyway ...
Is that all you know about religion..Shaker?! ::)
-
I wouldn't class that as an "almost phobic aversion to the animality" though. I think that he's just passionate about man aspiring to rise above a psychological state partly derived from what is shared with the rest of the animal world. Anyway, enough about Sriram, he is quite capable of defending himself from any ad homina if he chooses to do so.
Thanks a lot ekim! :)
-
Is that all you know about religion..Shaker?! ::)
Far from it, but why would I sugarcoat the plain truth to make it false?
-
I wouldn't class that as an "almost phobic aversion to the animality" though. I think that he's just passionate about man aspiring to rise above a psychological state partly derived from what is shared with the rest of the animal world. Anyway, enough about Sriram, he is quite capable of defending himself from any ad homina if he chooses to do so.
I'm sure Shaker will defend himself, but I think he makes a perfectly valid point. The so-called 'human' qualities Sriram lists are not exclusively human. They are qualities found elsewhere in the animal kingdom too - perhaps most famously studied in chimpanzees. Thus they are animal qualities found in humans amongst others. They do not mark us out as different from or 'above' the animals but rather represent our common bond with other animals. The human preoccupation with imagining ourselves 'better' than other animals is, perhaps, the thing that makes us unique in the animal kingdom and it is not something to be proud of. Perhaps a little honesty and humility on our part would give us pause before crowing too loudly about our 'higher' virtues. It is we who are Earth's problem child.
-
It is we who are Earth's problem child.
Goodness me ... [TwilightZone] do de do do, do de do do ... [/TwilightZone] ... for Christmas I got Michael McCarthy's beautiful, lyrically written but horribly sad and intensely depressing The Moth Snowstorm, which uses exactly that phrase. Is that where you got it from?
-
Yes, it is. As you say, a beautiful but depressing book.
-
I'm sure Shaker will defend himself, but I think he makes a perfectly valid point. The so-called 'human' qualities Sriram lists are not exclusively human. They are qualities found elsewhere in the animal kingdom too - perhaps most famously studied in chimpanzees. Thus they are animal qualities found in humans amongst others. They do not mark us out as different from or 'above' the animals but rather represent our common bond with other animals. The human preoccupation with imagining ourselves 'better' than other animals is, perhaps, the thing that makes us unique in the animal kingdom and it is not something to be proud of. Perhaps a little honesty and humility on our part would give us pause before crowing too loudly about our 'higher' virtues. It is we who are Earth's problem child.
I have not mentioned anything about exclusivity. In fact, I have specifically talked of 'continuity'. It is a spectrum with all life forms fitting into it. There are no clear demarcations or lines drawn with one side animals and the other side humans. Just as biological changes happen gradually, so also changes in consciousness happen gradually.
There are many human qualities in other life forms and many of their qualities in humans. It is a progression from certain qualities to certain other qualities.
There is no doubt that this kind of a change and progression in consciousness is happening. This is a fact that we can observe. It is only about 'why' it is happening that the spiritual evolution hypothesis becomes relevant instead of the usual...'its all due to random variation and natural selection'... song and dance.
-
Most of all...evolution is doing it! You missed that one. We ARE branching off from other animals (never mind what classification scientists label us with) ...and we are never going back. We ARE going to develop more and more our humanistic, intellectual, universal, cooperative attributes as we evolve.... which are all counter to the competitive and self oriented traits.
Our move towards humanism and civilization have been possible only due to the thrust on such qualities by religions over the centuries. As I have said in another thread on the role of religions, it is religions that have again and again emphasized altruism, cooperation, love, showing the other cheek, charity, patience and other such 'higher' level 'human' qualities.
So...its all matching up. Evolution, religions, spiritual theory, humanism, civilization ...they are all moving in tandem promoting the same set of qualities and eliminating the same set of qualities.
Humans are still evolving, yes, I'd go along with that, although our biological evolution is slowed having developed technologies to protect ourselves from pruning by natural selection. Humans are becoming more 'civilised', in a sense I could go along with that; we treat criminals with a view to rehabilitation rather than punishment for instance. On the other hand we still have wars going on just as always in history, we are inducing future climate instability for our descendants and we are the cause of one of the greatest traumas to befall life in the history of this planet, often termed the sixth mass extinction event and the rest of the biomass of this planet would be enraged at our self-congratulatory mirage of human progress were they capable of understanding it. The conceptual divide here is between biological evolution and cultural evolution. The ways in which we are becoming kinder, gentler more compassionate people are in the domain of cultural evolution, but cultural evolution is just a froth on top of the far more profound biological evolution. At base we are still cavemen with tools, starting from flint handaxes and arrowheads we have now progressed on to thermonuclear warheads, so much better for obliterating all the bad people with.
-
At base we are still cavemen with tools, starting from flint handaxes and arrowheads we have now progressed on to thermonuclear warheads, so much better for obliterating all the bad people with.
Just a brief comment - the fact that we have these means that the 'bad people' are far less likely to try and obliterate us first.
-
Humans are still evolving, yes, I'd go along with that, although our biological evolution is slowed having developed technologies to protect ourselves from pruning by natural selection. Humans are becoming more 'civilised', in a sense I could go along with that; we treat criminals with a view to rehabilitation rather than punishment for instance. On the other hand we still have wars going on just as always in history, we are inducing future climate instability for our descendants and we are the cause of one of the greatest traumas to befall life in the history of this planet, often termed the sixth mass extinction event and the rest of the biomass of this planet would be enraged at our self-congratulatory mirage of human progress were they capable of understanding it. The conceptual divide here is between biological evolution and cultural evolution. The ways in which we are becoming kinder, gentler more compassionate people are in the domain of cultural evolution, but cultural evolution is just a froth on top of the far more profound biological evolution. At base we are still cavemen with tools, starting from flint handaxes and arrowheads we have now progressed on to thermonuclear warheads, so much better for obliterating all the bad people with.
torridon,
Yes...the cultural evolution is what I compare with software evolution. Software evolution has overtaken hardware evolution to a large extent. Most of the work now seems to be in software.
The same has happened with humans. While biological evolution probably remains steady in the short term, the cultural, mental and intellectual development has overtaken it. So clearly, the mental aspects now seem more important than the physical. This again reiterates the fact that we ARE moving away from animal characteristics and developing other traits that we regard as more 'human' or as divine. This direction of movement of mankind seems clear to me.
And this is where what we call as spiritual development becomes relevant. The physical evolution seems to be less important now and there seems to be plenty of redundancy built into the biology in any case. I expect that only after all this is utilized we will develop further physically.
I don't know if there are any other qualities that we are expected to acquire for which the necessary biology needs to be built up. Maybe there is or maybe not!
-
Just a brief comment - the fact that we have these means that the 'bad people' are far less likely to try and obliterate us first.
Yes, but the fact that we have to threaten each other with total and utter annihilation in order to keep the peace is a measure of how immature we are as a species.
-
torridon,
Yes...the cultural evolution is what I compare with software evolution. Software evolution has overtaken hardware evolution to a large extent. Most of the work now seems to be in software.
The same has happened with humans. While biological evolution probably remains steady in the short term, the cultural, mental and intellectual development has overtaken it. So clearly, the mental aspects now seem more important than the physical. This again reiterates the fact that we ARE moving away from animal characteristics and developing other traits that we regard as more 'human' or as divine. This direction of movement of mankind seems clear to me.
And this is where what we call as spiritual development becomes relevant. The physical evolution seems to be less important now and there seems to be plenty of redundancy built into the biology in any case. I expect that only after all this is utilized we will develop further physically.
I don't know if there are any other qualities that we are expected to acquire for which the necessary biology needs to be built up. Maybe there is or maybe not!
To borrow another analogy, I would liken the situation to a horse and cart. The cart is our biological selves, the horse is our cultural and intellectual self. We have now replaced the horse with Lamborghini but it is still tied to the cart which has not really evolved at all by comparison. There is bound to be trouble when the Lamborghini gets up to speed
-
To borrow another analogy, I would liken the situation to a horse and cart. The cart is our biological selves, the horse is our cultural and intellectual self. We have now replaced the horse with Lamborghini but it is still tied to the cart which has not really evolved at all by comparison. There is bound to be trouble when the Lamborghini gets up to speed
The point is that there is a clear direction to all this. Biological evolution, cultural evolution, civilization, religions, spiritual theory......and even science... are all making us move in the same direction. No conflict at all!
-
The point is that there is a clear direction to all this. Biological evolution, cultural evolution, civilization, religions, spiritual theory......and even science... are all making us move in the same direction. No conflict at all!
There is a conflict between the lamborghini and the cart; that was my point. A cart is not built for those kind of speeds and your ideas on spiritual evolution do not really capture that disparity. Hence we can write great symphonies and sublime poetry and put landers on comets; but at the same time we are still killing each other over trivial differences in ethnicity or faith. That is a mighty paradox that needs explaining.
-
We are also demolishing wildlife and its habitats with great speed. I was reading today that cheetahs are in great danger of extinction - progress, eh? Where I live, many bird species have declined and some have disappeared, so humans are very skilled at destroying life.
-
There is a conflict between the lamborghini and the cart; that was my point. A cart is not built for those kind of speeds and your ideas on spiritual evolution do not really capture that disparity. Hence we can write great symphonies and sublime poetry and put landers on comets; but at the same time we are still killing each other over trivial differences in ethnicity or faith. That is a mighty paradox that needs explaining.
Obviously all the 7 billion humans are not at the same level of spiritual development. I have said that it is a spectrum with many at lower levels and some at higher levels.
About destruction of species....it has all happened before. Maybe not at the same rate....but life has always come back with a bang. I somehow think it is all Natures own doing. We are nature too remember! Our development and our activities are also part of natures plan....and it will all work our eventually IMO.
Life will prevail. Prana is everywhere after all! ;)
-
Nature's plan? Oh, I'll bet you will pay for that suggestion. :) I thought one of the ideas in Hinduism is Lila ... creative play.
-
Nature's plan? Oh, I'll bet you will pay for that suggestion. :) I thought one of the ideas in Hinduism is Lila ... creative play.
ekim,
'Lila' is a concept in the Puranas where God is seen somewhat like an individual (anthropomorphic).
In Samkhya philosophy (the oldest), Consciousness is the Purusha which is trapped in Nature (Prakriti) and is trying to free itself. This process requires it to shed its lower nature which is the 'I' principle or ahamkara. Here Prakriti is Intelligent and has its own manner of functioning...the Purusha only waiting to extricate itself.
In certain interpretations of Vedanta (Advaita), Brahman transforms itself into the world which includes Nature. Nature here also has its own laws and system of functioning.
In other interpretations of Vedanta also, Nature (Prakriti) is always Intelligent and has its independent manner of functioning..except that it is always overseen by Brahman.
Even in the later Puranic lore you will find gods like Vishnu and Shiva acknowledging their inability to interfere with the laws of nature. They are always seen working around Nature and never changing its functioning. Laws such as Karma, reincarnation, Life and death are seen as fundamental which even the Gods cannot change.
-
Obviously all the 7 billion humans are not at the same level of spiritual development. I have said that it is a spectrum with many at lower levels and some at higher levels.
Well if you believe that religions are instruments of spiritual development how do you account for examples like Sweden ? Apparently Swedes give more to charity than just about any other country, they have been more welcoming to refugees and migrants than just about any other country, they have lower crime rates than most countries; and yet far from being a highly religious place, Sweden is pretty much an atheist country. What this data suggests, is that, far from empowering spiritual development, religions tend to hold people back from being kinder and more compassionate people. The Swedes got to be such nice people by losing their religion.
-
Well if you believe that religions are instruments of spiritual development how do you account for examples like Sweden ? Apparently Swedes give more to charity than just about any other country, they have been more welcoming to refugees and migrants than just about any other country, they have lower crime rates than most countries; and yet far from being a highly religious place, Sweden is pretty much an atheist country. What this data suggests, is that, far from empowering spiritual development, religions tend to hold people back from being kinder and more compassionate people. The Swedes got to be such nice people by losing their religion.
What you are referring to are recent developments. Many atheists in other countries also are very humanistic.
But this stage would not have been reached but for religion. It is religions around the world that have emphasized and enforced over the centuries, certain types of cooperation, charity, morality, monogamy, family values, non-violence, self control, mental discipline, social responsibility and so on...all of which are higher level qualities.
It is religions that are also mainly responsible for the feeling of kinship and brotherhood outside geographical, linguistic and racial boundaries. Religions have been a great tool for cultural evolution and development....and for a humanistic civilization to develop as we know it.
-
... I think this angst goes deeper than a merely religious phenomenon, I would suggest that humanism, essentially a derivative christian idea with god removed, often features a similar narrative in terms of the ascent of man, of secular progress, and a progress toward something is also a journey away from something less desirable, namely our 'base' animal past.
I seldom - hardly ever - quibble with anything in your posts, torridon, but I do wonder whether you have anything from the Humanists which implies that?
Probably not, maybe it is more what is not said, or what is left out. Humanism seems to me to still make the human central, hence the name, and this centrality of the human to all things of importance identifies humanism as offspring from the christian religion. To me it looks like the best of ethical christian thinking but with god and any supernatural elements removed. A broader more holistic understanding would drop judeochristian notions of the specialness and importance of humans altogether.
-
What you are referring to are recent developments. Many atheists in other countries also are very humanistic.
But this stage would not have been reached but for religion. It is religions around the world that have emphasized and enforced over the centuries, certain types of cooperation, charity, morality, monogamy, family values, non-violence, self control, mental discipline, social responsibility and so on...all of which are higher level qualities.
It is religions that are also mainly responsible for the feeling of kinship and brotherhood outside geographical, linguistic and racial boundaries. Religions have been a great tool for cultural evolution and development....and for a humanistic civilization to develop as we know it.
You forgot to mention the role of religions throughout history and across cultures in relation to people being thoroughly nasty to each other or that none of the beneficial attributes you claim for religion are exclusively religious.
-
Probably not, maybe it is more what is not said, or what is left out. Humanism seems to me to still make the human central, hence the name, and this centrality of the human to all things of importance [...]
... is the great problem with it, in my view.
-
You forgot to mention the role of religions throughout history and across cultures in relation to people being thoroughly nasty to each other or that none of the beneficial attributes you claim for religion are exclusively religious.
Gordon,
If religions did not exist how do you think all the local tribes and villages would have behaved with one another? You think they would have all been friends, dancing and singing together? Of course not!
We have evolved from animals and have ingrained within us (as part of the survival instinct) great suspicion, fear and a competitive attitude towards rival groups...even of the same species. Any difference in looks, color, language or traditions would have immediately made other groups enemies.
It is religions that united people of diverse groups. Uniting through 'faith' is a great step forward.
We must thank all those missionaries who put up with great personal suffering to spread their faith...even in very remote areas. Their efforts have borne fruit today...not necessarily in maintaining the same faith....but in making all humanity as one, around the world. If there are two billion people around the world today thinking of themselves as Christian and feeling a sense of brotherhood with other Christians world over, it is no small achievement!
Muslims also did the same...but probably in a more violent manner due to their background. While all the killing is sad, the fact that 1.5 billion muslims around the world today feel connected, is again no mean achievement.
Mutual rivalry among religions is part of the old suspicion and fear. This will go in course of time.
Hindu spirituality (not religion) through secular systems such as Yoga, meditations etc...is also uniting people world over...taking it to a different level by freeing spirituality from religion. In future, it is likely that secular spirituality will become the means to self development among a majority of the people.
-
I seldom - hardly ever - quibble with anything in your posts, torridon, but I do wonder whether you have anything from the Humanists which implies that?
Probably not, maybe it is more what is not said, or what is left out. Humanism seems to me to still make the human central, hence the name, and this centrality of the human to all things of importance identifies humanism as offspring from the christian religion. To me it looks like the best of ethical christian thinking but with god and any supernatural elements removed. A broader more holistic understanding would drop judeochristian notions of the specialness and importance of humans altogether.
torridon,
'Humans are central' is very different from 'Humans are more developed'. It is true that in earlier times, many groups thought of humans as 'central' and all other life forms as incidental or as accessories. This is wrong and has probably resulted in significant disregard for other forms of life and for destruction of much of the eco system.
But regarding humans as more developed spiritually is very different. This does not in any way condemn or disregard other life forms. In fact it clearly makes them all parts of a whole....as necessary stages in development. Like children in various classes in school. Everyone is aware that they were once in lower classes and that their own younger brothers are now there.
-
Gordon,
If religions did not exist how do you think all the local tribes and villages would have behaved with one another? You think they would have all been friends, dancing and singing together? Of course not!
We have evolved from animals and have ingrained within us (as part of the survival instinct) great suspicion, fear and a competitive attitude towards rival groups...even of the same species. Any difference in looks, color, language or traditions would have immediately made other groups enemies.
It is religions that united people of diverse groups. Uniting through 'faith' is a great step forward.
Especially when one 'faith' group unites in conflict against another 'faith' group, which of course includes different versions of the same 'faith'.
We must thank all those missionaries who put up with great personal suffering to spread their faith...even in very remote areas. Their efforts have borne fruit today...not necessarily in maintaining the same faith....but in making all humanity as one, around the world. If there are two billion people around the world today thinking of themselves as Christian and feeling a sense of brotherhood with other Christians world over, it is no small achievement!
Another way of looking at missionaries is to see them as people who, having caught something nasty themselves, seem determine to spread it to others: evangelical versions of Typhoid Mary perhaps.
Muslims also did the same...but probably in a more violent manner due to their background. While all the killing is sad, the fa.ct that 1.5 billion muslims around the world today feel connected, is again no mean achievement.
You can't be serious.
Mutual rivalry among religions is part of the old suspicion and fear. This will go in course of time.
Most probably when all the underlying religions slowly expire to the point they are no longer socially significant: here in the UK Christianity is leading the way.
Hindu spirituality (not religion) through secular systems such as Yoga, meditations etc...is also uniting people world over...taking it to a different level by freeing spirituality from religion. In future, it is likely that secular spirituality will become the means to self development among a majority of the people.
Or not, for those of us who aren't 'spiritual' (whatever 'spiritual' means).
-
Another way of looking at missionaries is to see them as people who, having caught something nasty themselves, seem determine to spread it to others: evangelical versions of Typhoid Mary perhaps.
Pinching Reserving that one for future use, if you don't mind ever so.
-
torridon,
'Humans are central' is very different from 'Humans are more developed'. It is true that in earlier times, many groups thought of humans as 'central' and all other life forms as incidental or as accessories. This is wrong and has probably resulted in significant disregard for other forms of life and for destruction of much of the eco system.
But regarding humans as more developed spiritually is very different. This does not in any way condemn or disregard other life forms. In fact it clearly makes them all parts of a whole....as necessary stages in development. Like children in various classes in school. Everyone is aware that they were once in lower classes and that their own younger brothers are now there.
So is an E-coli bacterium a necessary stage in spiritual development ? What about the now extinct Argentinosaurus ?
-
So is an E-coli bacterium a necessary stage in spiritual development ? What about the now extinct Argentinosaurus ?
What about the hand cranking adding machines and those vintage planes and cars? Aren't they a part of the evolution of these items? Yet, weren't they all produced by intelligent beings?
-
What about the hand cranking adding machines and those vintage planes and cars? Aren't they a part of the evolution of these items? Yet, weren't they all produced by intelligent beings?
The evolutionary pathway that has led to humans is just one of many; the overwhelming majority of species have become evolutionary dead ends on the branches of the tree of life, not because of failure to developed spiritually, but because of competition and external change beyond their control. I'm not sure how your notion of spiritual development maps onto this picture of the tree of life.
-
The evolutionary pathway that has led to humans is just one of many; the overwhelming majority of species have become evolutionary dead ends on the branches of the tree of life, not because of failure to developed spiritually, but because of competition and external change beyond their control. I'm not sure how your notion of spiritual development maps onto this picture of the tree of life.
torridon,
I don't claim to have all the answers. Lots of things we don't know...just as in Science. We have certain hypothesis keeping in mind our experiences and the observations of the world.
How and why Consciousness works the way it does I am not sure....but the fact that there is a direction and Intelligent guidance in biological evolution is IMO quite obvious.
I am seeing amazing parallels between man made products and human evolution. There are many dead ends even in human inventions. Many computer, plane and car models have never progressed further......even though we as intelligent beings have produced them. Darwin himself came up with his Natural Selection only in line with Artificial Selection that he found in breeding animals and plants.
As I have said in another thread, if robots, cars, computers etc. have sufficient intelligence and if they could not sense humans living around them....they would come up with precisely the same conclusions that we have come up with in regard to random variations and Natural Selection.
'Planes have evolved to suit the air flow, racing cars have evolved to suit race tracks, tractors have evolved to suit agricultural fields, ships have evolved for the water, super computers have evolved for certain functions.....etc. etc. All random variations and Natural Selection to suit the environment.' :D
If they could only sense the existence of humans, they would know that there is nothing random about all this....it was all intended even though there are plenty of redundancies, wastage and dead ends.
We could also use animal and plant examples that have been developed by humans.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
torridon,
I don't claim to have all the answers. Lots of things we don't know...just as in Science. We have certain hypothesis keeping in mind our experiences and the observations of the world.
How and why Consciousness works the way it does I am not sure....but the fact that there is a direction and Intelligent guidance in biological evolution is IMO quite obvious.
I am seeing amazing parallels between man made products and human evolution. There are many dead ends even in human inventions. Many computer, plane and car models have never progressed further......even though we as intelligent beings have produced them. Darwin himself came up with his Natural Selection only in line with Artificial Selection that he found in breeding animals and plants.
As I have said in another thread, if robots, cars, computers etc. have sufficient intelligence and if they could not sense humans living around them....they would come up with precisely the same conclusions that we have come up with in regard to random variations and Natural Selection.
Planes have evolved to suit the air flow, racing cars have evolved to suit race tracks, tractors have evolved to suit agricultural fields, ships have evolved for the water, super computers have evolved for certain functions.....etc. etc. All random variations and Natural Selection to suit the environment. :D
If they could only sense the existence of humans, they would know that there is nothing random about all this....it was all intended even though there are plenty of redundancies, wastage and dead ends.
We could also use animal and plant examples that have been developed by humans.
Cheers.
Sriram
Apart from just sort of mentioning, you, know, sort of just casually, that all manufactured items have not evolved, they have been changed by HUMAN BEINGS!! .... and I know that's not all you've said here, but I couldn't read it all through in detail and missed out quite a bit!
*Sighs deeply and goes off to do physio exercises.*
-
re post #96
Sriram,
it's not even wrong.
-
torridon,
I don't claim to have all the answers. Lots of things we don't know...just as in Science. We have certain hypothesis keeping in mind our experiences and the observations of the world.
How and why Consciousness works the way it does I am not sure....but the fact that there is a direction and Intelligent guidance in biological evolution is IMO quite obvious.
I am seeing amazing parallels between man made products and human evolution. There are many dead ends even in human inventions. Many computer, plane and car models have never progressed further......even though we as intelligent beings have produced them. Darwin himself came up with his Natural Selection only in line with Artificial Selection that he found in breeding animals and plants.
As I have said in another thread, if robots, cars, computers etc. have sufficient intelligence and if they could not sense humans living around them....they would come up with precisely the same conclusions that we have come up with in regard to random variations and Natural Selection.
'Planes have evolved to suit the air flow, racing cars have evolved to suit race tracks, tractors have evolved to suit agricultural fields, ships have evolved for the water, super computers have evolved for certain functions.....etc. etc. All random variations and Natural Selection to suit the environment.' :D
If they could only sense the existence of humans, they would know that there is nothing random about all this....it was all intended even though there are plenty of redundancies, wastage and dead ends.
We could also use animal and plant examples that have been developed by humans.
Cheers.
Sriram
if there is some unseen intelligence guiding evolution then it perhaps isn't very bright given that 95% of all species have gone extinct. The diversity and evolution of life seems entirely consistent with the rationale that is the outcome of descent with random variation upon which undirected selection acts. And even if there is some unseen guiding hand that is making a botched job of it whilst maintaining a superficial illusion that it is all purely natural, this explanation still fails to explain the origin or nature of the guiding force; where did it come from ?
-
#97
Apart from just sort of mentioning, you, know, sort of just casually, that all manufactured items have not evolved, they have been changed by HUMAN BEINGS!! .... and I know that's not all you've said here, but I couldn't read it all through in detail and missed out quite a bit!
So if the arguments used elsewhere are applied to the things human beings design and make, one would have to conclude that human beings didn't design and make them, otherwise it creates an infinite regression.
-
#97
So if the arguments used elsewhere are applied to the things human beings design and make, one would have to conclude that human beings didn't design and make them, otherwise it creates an infinite regression.
NOPE, and I've read it 5 times now
-
NOPE, and I've read it 5 times now
You read #97 as a response to #96?
-
NOPE, and I've read it 5 times now
I commend your fortitude! :)
-
if there is some unseen intelligence guiding evolution then it perhaps isn't very bright given that 95% of all species have gone extinct. The diversity and evolution of life seems entirely consistent with the rationale that is the outcome of descent with random variation upon which undirected selection acts. And even if there is some unseen guiding hand that is making a botched job of it whilst maintaining a superficial illusion that it is all purely natural, this explanation still fails to explain the origin or nature of the guiding force; where did it come from ?
torridon,
Well...probably most of the human made products have also gone extinct. What we are left with now are only the latest models. The parallels are so obvious.
Why do you keep asking about the origins of those forces? Would robots know the origins of humans when they cannot even sense us....or for that matter, even if they could sense us off and on? Of course not! And because they cannot know of our origins does not mean we have not created them.
The simple answer to your question is that we have no idea about the origins of the guiding intelligence. So what?
Merely repeating such fundamental questions does not help in going forward. Such questions can be asked of all scientific theories and no one would have any answers. We have to put together all pieces without getting carried away only with certain aspects of reality while ignoring others.
-
torridon,
Well...probably most of the human made products have also gone extinct. What we are left with now are only the latest models. The parallels are so obvious.
Why do you keep asking about the origins of those forces? Would robots know the origins of humans when they cannot even sense us....or for that matter, even if they could sense us off and on? Of course not! And because they cannot know of our origins does not mean we have not created them.
The simple answer to your question is that we have no idea about the origins of the guiding intelligence. So what?
....
Why, because that renders the explanatory value of our understanding null. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If we claim that A is because of B and B is because of C and C is because a magic pixie made it, why, because it wanted to and stop asking questions, that renders worthless the entire project. Locating an ultimate explanation for all things out of reach in some unknowable external realm has the hallmark of a logic fail, an unwillingness to try to understand things on their own terms. An explanation that avoids this weakness is stronger.
-
Why, because that renders the explanatory value of our understanding null. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If we claim that A is because of B and B is because of C and C is because a magic pixie made it, why, because it wanted to and stop asking questions, that renders worthless the entire project. Locating an ultimate explanation for all things out of reach in some unknowable external realm has the hallmark of a logic fail, an unwillingness to try to understand things on their own terms. An explanation that avoids this weakness is stronger.
But surely wanting the total illogic an infinite chain of derived power because one is troubled by something with actual power is pretty desperate.
The 'magic pixie' thing is pretty gratuitously new atheist arrogance and humbug if one is prepared to entertain stuff popping up out of nowhere as we speak.
-
Why, because that renders the explanatory value of our understanding null. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If we claim that A is because of B and B is because of C and C is because a magic pixie made it, why, because it wanted to and stop asking questions, that renders worthless the entire project. Locating an ultimate explanation for all things out of reach in some unknowable external realm has the hallmark of a logic fail, an unwillingness to try to understand things on their own terms. An explanation that avoids this weakness is stronger.
torridon,
You are still caught in the religious idea of the 'ultimate' explanation. There is no ultimate explanation that we can possibly attempt to understand. The attempt here is only to understand immediate causes.
Ideas such as random variations, chance, emergent property etc. are not explanations. They are attempts to keep possible non material explanations at bay and to circumvent all such ideas. It is a fear of the non material. The God phobia!
What I am attempting is only to explain Consciousness, Self, Life and other phenomena that we experience everyday. For this, taking a cue from the way man made objects get created and how they evolve, is perfectly in order. As above so below!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
But surely wanting the total illogic an infinite chain of derived power because one is troubled by something with actual power is pretty desperate.
The 'magic pixie' thing is pretty gratuitously new atheist arrogance and humbug if one is prepared to entertain stuff popping up out of nowhere as we speak.
We have evidential basis for stuff popping up out of nowhere and granted we don't fully understand it and this is par for the course in the sense that science throws up observations that do confound our intuitions and we need to work on it to figure out what it all means. That said, a particle popping up out of nowhere is small beer compared to gods with similarly zero provenance, coming as they do fully preloaded with morals, intelligence, plans and desires. Gods are thus a poorer candidate for your 'actual power' than something simpler.
-
Ideas such as random variations, chance, emergent property etc. are not explanations. They are attempts to keep possible non material explanations at bay and to circumvent all such ideas. It is a fear of the non material. The God phobia!
Nah, that's just conspiracy thinking. Emergence and probability are indispensable foundational principles that we have come to understand through observation. Furthermore your notions regarding self, consciousness are not faithful to evidence, and they only persist as ideas because they depend unevidenced realms of reality that are out of reach of falsifiability,
-
torridon,
Ideas such as random variations, chance, emergent property etc. are not explanations.
They are part of the explanatory backdrop: for example many of the established statistical tests involve estimating the risk of chance, where findings are deemed to be 'significant' only where the risk of chance is estimated as being no greater than a certain value (usually 5%).
They are attempts to keep possible non material explanations at bay and to circumvent all such ideas.
We've yet to see any non-material explanations, given the absence of an underlying method to give context to claims of the non-natural: we do see plenty of fallacies in support of the non-natural, which is telling.
It is a fear of the non material. The God phobia!
Nope: it's impossible to be fearful of claims there is no credible evidence for.
What I am attempting is only to explain Consciousness, Self, Life and other phenomena that we experience everyday. For this, taking a cue from the way man made objects get created and how they evolve, is perfectly in order. As above so below!
Which is your personal incredulity kicking in again: you are also using the fallacy of equivocation here too, since you are using 'evolve' differently by using the same term to refer to both the design and refinement of something manufactured (such as would be evident in patent documentation) with the unguided biological process of evolution (as per the TofE).
-
We've yet to see any non-material explanations, given the absence of an underlying method to give context to claims of the non-natural: we do see plenty of fallacies in support of the non-natural, which is telling.
I would go further and say that a non-material explanation is a contradiction in terms, for the reason given: nobody can cough up with any methodological basis for evaluating claims of the non-material.
Goodness knows we've asked often enough ...
-
Nah, that's just conspiracy thinking. Emergence and probability are indispensable foundational principles that we have come to understand through observation. Furthermore your notions regarding self, consciousness are not faithful to evidence, and they only persist as ideas because they depend unevidenced realms of reality that are out of reach of falsifiability,
torridon,
They are philosophical ideas that seek to explain experiences and observations, without conflicting with actual empirical findings. If they fit into a pattern that is consistent with certain observations and personal experiences, that should be good enough. Everything does not have to fit the criteria of mainstream scientific investigations. As I have said, science is not everything!
Life is too big to fit into the boundaries you have defined for science.
-
torridon,
They are philosophical ideas that seek to explain experiences and observations, without conflicting with actual empirical findings. If they fit into a pattern that is consistent with certain observations and personal experiences, that should be good enough. Everything does not have to fit the criteria of mainstream scientific investigations. As I have said, science is not everything!
Life is too big to fit into the boundaries you have defined for science.
There is, however, greater security and safety when it is known what is reliable fact and what is fiction. To live in a hazy, insubstantial world of beliefs for which no method exists to understand whether they are fact or not is to live a less than complete life. When I die, I shall know that I have not been blind to reality.
-
torridon,
They are philosophical ideas that seek to explain experiences and observations, without conflicting with actual empirical findings. If they fit into a pattern that is consistent with certain observations and personal experiences, that should be good enough. Everything does not have to fit the criteria of mainstream scientific investigations. As I have said, science is not everything!
Life is too big to fit into the boundaries you have defined for science.
what motivates you to continue with this inane childish nonsense , what is it you don't understand?
-
There is, however, greater security and safety when it is known what is reliable fact and what is fiction. To live in a hazy, insubstantial world of beliefs for which no method exists to understand whether they are fact or not is to live a less than complete life. When I die, I shall know that I have not been blind to reality.
SD,
A magnificent, truthful post
-
Walter
thank you for saying.
-
There is, however, greater security and safety when it is known what is reliable fact and what is fiction. To live in a hazy, insubstantial world of beliefs for which no method exists to understand whether they are fact or not is to live a less than complete life. When I die, I shall know that I have not been blind to reality.
A lovely post, Susan. It brings to mind a quote by the philosopher George Santayana: "To be boosted by an illusion is not better than to live in harmony with the truth; it is not nearly so safe, not nearly so sweet, and not nearly so fruitful. These refusals to part with a decayed illusion are really an infection to the mind."
-
Thank you, Shaker. At least I know there are four young people - both granddaughters and their partners - who will live complete lives. They have very sensible parents, but I think a bit of it is due to granny's influence!! :)
-
torridon,
They are philosophical ideas that seek to explain experiences and observations, without conflicting with actual empirical findings. If they fit into a pattern that is consistent with certain observations and personal experiences, that should be good enough. Everything does not have to fit the criteria of mainstream scientific investigations. As I have said, science is not everything!
Life is too big to fit into the boundaries you have defined for science.
You might have got away with that view 200 years ago but not now. Ideas of spirits and souls and suchlike belong in a pre-science age, they are not consistent with our accumulated understanding of what life is, how it works, the nature of consciousness and the self, and the relationship between brain and mind. Such ancient ideas persist only because they lack the level of detail and verifiability that we expect in all other areas of life now.
Apart from that, Happy New Year ;)
-
There is, however, greater security and safety when it is known what is reliable fact and what is fiction. To live in a hazy, insubstantial world of beliefs for which no method exists to understand whether they are fact or not is to live a less than complete life. When I die, I shall know that I have not been blind to reality.
Nicely said ;)
-
You might have got away with that view 200 years ago but not now. Ideas of spirits and souls and suchlike belong in a pre-science age, they are not consistent with our accumulated understanding of what life is, how it works, the nature of consciousness and the self, and the relationship between brain and mind. Such ancient ideas persist only because they lack the level of detail and verifiability that we expect in all other areas of life now.
Apart from that, Happy New Year ;)
torridon,
What do we really know of Consciousness and Self through the 'accumulated knowledge' of science....? Nothing at all! Like peering into the car engine to find out why it is going somewhere! :D Hardly likely to yield results. Mechanisms are not causes!
Anyway...Happy New Year to you too! :) And to Shaker, Walter and Susan!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
torridon,
What do we really know of Consciousness and Self through the 'accumulated knowledge' of science....? Nothing at all! Like peering into the car engine to find out why it is going somewhere! :D Hardly likely to yield results. Mechanisms are not causes!
Anyway...Happy New Year to you too! :) And to Shaker, Walter and Susan!
Cheers.
Sriram
you too and I hope you find what you're looking for
-
There is, however, greater security and safety when it is known what is reliable fact and what is fiction. To live in a hazy, insubstantial world of beliefs for which no method exists to understand whether they are fact or not is to live a less than complete life. When I die, I shall know that I have not been blind to reality.
Another view might be that to personally experience what is reliable fact as opposed to just a belief based upon second hand information, one has often to give up the restrictions of security and safety to make a journey of discovery into the unknown. To such an adventurer, the moment to moment journey is more vital than just living in a metaphysical world of facts and figures derived from others, which he might see as a life not lived at all.
-
Another view might be that to personally experience what is reliable fact as opposed to just a belief based upon second hand information, one has often to give up the restrictions of security and safety to make a journey of discovery into the unknown. To such an adventurer, the moment to moment journey is more vital than just living in a metaphysical world of facts and figures derived from others, which he might see as a life not lived at all.
Absolutely! Without inner quest....merely reading about the cosmos and QM is not living at all IMO. What reality would we get to know of?! ::)
-
Another view might be that to personally experience what is reliable fact as opposed to just a belief based upon second hand information, one has often to give up the restrictions of security and safety to make a journey of discovery into the unknown. To such an adventurer, the moment to moment journey is more vital than just living in a metaphysical world of facts and figures derived from others, which he might see as a life not lived at all.
I was only thinking the other day - in my mind are many millions of thoughts, images, ideas, scraps of conversation, the content of many books, many pieces of music, both learnt and heard, every piece of information from all the senses, etc etc all controlled and managed by my brain; and when I die, no-one else will know more than just the most miniscule fraction of all those millions of bits of information. Even if they remember the things I have said, it will be absorbed into their total store and not be felt or remembered in the way I do. But that's the way we have evolved and is right and proper therefore. I have thought much about God and beliefs; uncritically as a child and then more and more questioningly as I matured. Experiences I was told were from God I was sceptical about from a young age so I am pleased I did not waste too many years chasing what I know is some non-existent something.
I certainly do not have to experience personally everything I believe to be true, as there is evidence enough for me to have faith that they are true. It is impossible actually to experience god etc - all such imagined experiences are from the mind, encouraged by the multitude of stories that have been in human minds since language evolved.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by making a journey of discovery into the unknown. Could you explain please?
-
A lovely post, Susan. It brings to mind a quote by the philosopher George Santayana: "To be boosted by an illusion is not better than to live in harmony with the truth; it is not nearly so safe, not nearly so sweet, and not nearly so fruitful. These refusals to part with a decayed illusion are really an infection to the mind."
Although sentimentality is a mark of unroundedness and the belief that the humanist way leads to harmony is indeed sentimental.
-
Take it up with the humanists.
-
Although sentimentality is a mark of unroundedness and the belief that the humanist way leads to harmony is indeed sentimental.
What do you think the 'humanist way' leads to?
-
I certainly do not have to experience personally everything I believe to be true, as there is evidence enough for me to have faith that they are true. It is impossible actually to experience god etc - all such imagined experiences are from the mind, encouraged by the multitude of stories that have been in human minds since language evolved.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by making a journey of discovery into the unknown. Could you explain please?
Yes. It can happen on the physical level where somebody has discovered what it is like to climb to the top of Everest or into the deepest parts of Africa. It may have been achieved by others who have related their experience but until I have carried out the same journey I may imagine what it is like but the actual experience is unknown to me. We can be safely entertained by the anecdotes of others but the experiential truth lies in making the journey ourselves. It is much the same with the ,so called, spiritual journey except that it is inward rather than outward and imagination is likely to be a hindrance.
-
Hi everyone,
I suspect that most people who are unable to see any merit in spiritual philosophies are (usually) people who have rarely if ever, been out of their countries or even towns (maybe to very similar cultures if at all).... and have had very little exposure to other cultures and ways of thinking. Some of them perhaps would rather not know or understand even if they had a chance. They believe their glass is full and nothing more is required to be added.
And the fact that India and other eastern parts have for centuries been steeped in poverty and lack of modern education....would have added to their sense of superiority and disinterest in these cultures and ideas. Lumping everything as 'primitive superstitious rubbish'...would be most convenient.
Most of them have perhaps had a problem with Christianity and Islam and have therefore chosen science as a better means of understanding the world...which is fair enough.
These are the people who are embedded in Science almost as though it were concrete. ::)
That is why many of them are unable to assimilate new ideas even though they are not conflicting with science. They prefer the usual bible bashing sessions again and again. Very safe and entertaining.....
It is very difficult to make such people look beyond science, not for alternatives.... but for additional inputs and thoughts that could expand their minds and take it beyond the narrow confines of science.
I can only keep trying! And luckily I am out of pitchfork throwing distance! ;)
Thanks & Cheers.
Sriram
-
Yes. It can happen on the physical level where somebody has discovered what it is like to climb to the top of Everest or into the deepest parts of Africa. It may have been achieved by others who have related their experience but until I have carried out the same journey I may imagine what it is like but the actual experience is unknown to me. We can be safely entertained by the anecdotes of others but the experiential truth lies in making the journey ourselves. It is much the same with the ,so called, spiritual journey except that it is inward rather than outward and imagination is likely to be a hindrance.
Thank you for making that clear. I do not think I agree with you that a physical journey can be compared with an 'inward' spiritual one, although I understand of course that no person can actually experience something in a way identical to the way another does.
-
Hi everyone,
I suspect that most people who are unable to see any merit in spiritual philosophies are (usually) people who have rarely if ever, been out of their countries or even towns (maybe to very similar cultures if at all).... and have had very little exposure to other cultures and ways of thinking. Some of them perhaps would rather not know or understand even if they had a chance. They believe their glass is full and nothing more is required to be added.
That statement should either be backed up by facts or withdrawn. As it stands, it shows an extremely demeaning attitude to others and that you feel that you are superior in understanding.And the fact that India and other eastern parts have for centuries been steeped in poverty and lack of modern education....would have added to their sense of superiority and disinterest in these cultures and ideas.
I think you mean a lack of interest, not disinterested.
-
Hi everyone,
I suspect that most people who are unable to see any merit in spiritual philosophies are (usually) people who have rarely if ever, been out of their countries or even towns (maybe to very similar cultures if at all).... and have had very little exposure to other cultures and ways of thinking. Some of them perhaps would rather not know or understand even if they had a chance. They believe their glass is full and nothing more is required to be added.
..
That's kind of the opposite of my experience. My journey from christian to atheist has been paralleled and informed by becoming something of a traveller and not staying home. The entirety of my world as a little boy was christian. We didn't know anyone who wasn't christian, and as for foreigners, well poor souls, they just weren't as lucky as we were, not knowing the truth. Travel broadens the mind so they say, introducing you to different ways of thinking and being and now my childhood looks naive and parochial in retrospect. Here's something else travel does for you, it trains you to be an observer; be not just a tourist enjoying hotel pleasures, but become an acute observer of humankind and all the diverse ways in which we interact with each other and our environment.
-
Another view might be that to personally experience what is reliable fact as opposed to just a belief based upon second hand information, one has often to give up the restrictions of security and safety to make a journey of discovery into the unknown. To such an adventurer, the moment to moment journey is more vital than just living in a metaphysical world of facts and figures derived from others, which he might see as a life not lived at all.
I think that is well put.
Perhaps rituals and reenactments are attempts to recapture a moment of vitality and meaning from the past, with varying degrees of success.
Personal experience has to be balanced against the personal experience of others and each personal experience is unique. So we need methods do distil out common denominators of the range of experience if we are to attempt to see what is 'true for all' rather than merely what is 'true for me.'
-
I think that is well put.
Perhaps rituals and reenactments are attempts to recapture a moment of vitality and meaning from the past, with varying degrees of success.
Personal experience has to be balanced against the personal experience of others and each personal experience is unique. So we need methods do distil out common denominators of the range of experience if we are to attempt to see what is 'true for all' rather than merely what is 'true for me.'
Since science seems to now have come a matter of intersubjectivity suggestions of incompetence in this area in interpretation of experience need justification.
What I am saying is science is an inter subjective experience. Religion is an intersubjectivity experience and antitheism gets to arbitrate and opine on competence and incompetence.
-
torridon
Interesting. It looks as if you read Sriram's posts differently from the way I did. I shall watch others' responses to see if I was mistaken. I agree that travellllllllll and living in (Little) Aden for eight years certainly helped to confirm my moving away from a CofE background.
-
Torridon
.Perhaps rituals and reenactments are attempts to recapture a moment of vitality and meaning from the past, with varying degrees of success
I am sure there is a lot in that, what worked as a stimulus in the past, if repeated, should produce the same pleasurable response now. It can also be the basis of addiction.
Personal experience has to be balanced against the personal experience of others and each personal experience is unique. So we need methods do distil out common denominators of the range of experience if we are to attempt to see what is 'true for all' rather than merely what is 'true for me.'
My personal experience tells me not to attempt the 'true for all' declaration. ;) I'm quite happy with the vagaries of relative truth and their surprises rather than searching for absolutes, especially when it involves human behaviour .... and that's the absolute truth! :)
-
Thank you for making that clear. I do not think I agree with you that a physical journey can be compared with an 'inward' spiritual one, although I understand of course that no person can actually experience something in a way identical to the way another does.
Yes, you are right. The only comparison I was making was between actual experience and imagined experience gained from second or third hand accounts. It applies to the 'outward' and 'inward' journeys.
-
Yes, you are right. The only comparison I was making was between actual experience and imagined experience gained from second or third hand accounts. It applies to the 'outward' and 'inward' journeys.
This is surely the real issue with any claims of some religious people to have any form of validation from others having had the 'same' experience?
-
This is surely the real issue with any claims of some religious people to have any form of validation from others having had the 'same' experience?
Yes, I would go so far as to say that any inner experiences especially if intense or deep are difficult to communicate and so accurate comparison is limited. This is why outworn phrases like amazing, unbelievable, fantastic, stunning, mind blowing, incredible, out of this world, only give a limited idea. What I would say, though, is that there are a variety of methods embedded within a number of religions which if practised allows the individual to source those experiences from within rather than chasing after them in the external world.
-
Yes, I would go so far as to say that any inner experiences especially if intense or deep are difficult to communicate and so accurate comparison is limited. This is why outworn phrases like amazing, unbelievable, fantastic, stunning, mind blowing, incredible, out of this world, only give a limited idea. What I would say, though, is that there are a variety of methods embedded within a number of religions which if practised allows the individual to source those experiences from within rather than chasing after them in the external world.
mmm I find an issue here with this clear split between internal/external. The idea that internal external experiences are somehow divorced from or more 'valuable' than those as regards the external seems to me a unjustifiable position.
-
mmm I find an issue here with this clear split between internal/external. The idea that internal external experiences are somehow divorced from or more 'valuable' than those as regards the external seems to me a unjustifiable position.
I guess in this case 'value' would be in the eyes of the beholder and I suppose that all experiences end up as 'inner', but to draw an analogy, if one has a ready source of water at home, would there be a need to keep taking a bucket down to the village pump to collect it?
-
I guess in this case 'value' would be in the eyes of the beholder and I suppose that all experiences end up as 'inner', but to draw an analogy, if one has a ready source of water at home, would there be a need to keep taking a bucket down to the village pump to collect it?
so I should ignore all people? After all, they are just the village pump.
-
so I should ignore all people? After all, they are just the village pump.
Well, without pushing the analogy too far, rather than ignore others you might like to consider showing them how to access their own inner source of 'water' so that they too will not have to look elsewhere for it.