Secular Spirituality

[Conde Lucanor]

Secular spirituality is an oxymoron which flat-lines the very idea of itself. Spiritual experiences do not need to be modified into secular or theistic as distinct from the other.

The more I listen to people referring to "spirituality" from a non-theistic perspective, the more I am convinced that it is a useless, limited concept, which has dragged with it more or less the same problems it had from the theistic perspective. It's treated as if it was a specific, neutral domain, which could then be appropriated for secular or non-secular goals. But you can see the insistence on tying this spirituality stuff to particular emotions, reminiscent of mystical experiences. Is that the extra bonus added to the supposedly limited materialist thinking? Nonsense!

[Greta]

Secular spirituality is an oxymoron which flat-lines the very idea of itself. Spiritual experiences do not need to be modified into secular or theistic as distinct from the other.

The more I listen to people referring to "spirituality" from a non-theistic perspective, the more I am convinced that it is a useless, limited concept, which has dragged with it more or less the same problems it had from the theistic perspective.

Yes, secular spirituality is an (ostensibly) impractical, useless and limited concept. Art and musical appreciation are similarly useless, limited and impractical.

However, some people are not so ascetically devoted to duty and productivity as to deny themselves (ostensibly) "useless" but enjoyable aspects of life that utilise their emotional capacities. Secular spirituality is like blue skies research - it appears pointless but the act of exploration necessarily brings opportunity. Let the serious ones forge forward efficiently and effectively with their blinkers on. Horses for courses, as they say.

[Dubious]

However, some people are not so ascetically devoted to duty and productivity as to deny themselves (ostensibly) "useless" but enjoyable aspects of life that utilise their emotional capacities. Secular spirituality is like blue skies research - it appears pointless but the act of exploration necessarily brings opportunity. Let the serious ones forge forward efficiently and effectively with their blinkers on. Horses for courses, as they say.

Well, nothing more to say since you pretty well misunderstood most of what I wrote. Best you continue with your favorite sparring partner Nick_A.

[Greta]

However, some people are not so ascetically devoted to duty and productivity as to deny themselves (ostensibly) "useless" but enjoyable aspects of life that utilise their emotional capacities. Secular spirituality is like blue skies research - it appears pointless but the act of exploration necessarily brings opportunity. Let the serious ones forge forward efficiently and effectively with their blinkers on. Horses for courses, as they say.

Well, nothing more to say since you pretty well misunderstood most of what I wrote. Best you continue with your favorite sparring partner Nick_A.

Actually, I stuffed up the quote tags. I was replying to Conde's post rather than yours, which was only included by accident. I did not even read a word of your post, which you seem to have noticed . I apologise for any confusion caused.

Whatever, you used a very small excuse to entirely dismiss me as a member - twice now - so I won't bother responding now. The first time you dismissed me like this, about a year ago or whatever, yes, I was being a turd at the time and fully deserved the rejection. From memory, I'd misunderstood you and accused you of being a creationist

This time it seems you are just looking for an excuse.

[Dubious]

Whatever, you used a very small excuse to entirely dismiss me as a member - twice now - so I won't bother responding now. The first time you dismissed me like this, about a year ago or whatever, yes, I was being a turd at the time and fully deserved the rejection. From memory, I'd misunderstood you and accused you of being a creationist

This time it seems you are just looking for an excuse.

No excuse! some people just aren't compatible as debating partners. I agree, best to keep away from each other.

[Greta]

Whatever, you used a very small excuse to entirely dismiss me as a member - twice now - so I won't bother responding now. The first time you dismissed me like this, about a year ago or whatever, yes, I was being a turd at the time and fully deserved the rejection. From memory, I'd misunderstood you and accused you of being a creationist

This time it seems you are just looking for an excuse.

No excuse! some people just aren't compatible as debating partners. I agree, best to keep away from each other.

Really? We were plenty compatible on the thread until I made a mistake, for which I apologised. That mistake was then followed by your own error, but you did not apologise.

In the light of the above lack of normal goodwill, yes, it's best that you stay away from me.

[Dubious]

Secular spirituality is an oxymoron which flat-lines the very idea of itself. Spiritual experiences do not need to be modified into secular or theistic as distinct from the other.

The more I listen to people referring to "spirituality" from a non-theistic perspective, the more I am convinced that it is a useless, limited concept, which has dragged with it more or less the same problems it had from the theistic perspective. It's treated as if it was a specific, neutral domain, which could then be appropriated for secular or non-secular goals. But you can see the insistence on tying this spirituality stuff to particular emotions, reminiscent of mystical experiences. Is that the extra bonus added to the supposedly limited materialist thinking? Nonsense!

To me spiritual/spirituality resolves, more or less, to some momentary spikes in one's psyche created by some catalyst which combines with one's mental chemistry. Spiritual is not the same as mystical in its usual sense which can denote any number of absurdities to keep itself afloat. What is felt as spiritual is not absurd though its explanation can often be defined as absurdly mystical. There are extensions to oneself that can feel both spiritual and mystical. In extreme cases it's not art, literature, music or nature which invokes it but trauma.

Anyways, I still have no idea how "secular" spirituality differs from any other type. It's causes are as individual as the person. The word "secular" has been so mutilated and deformed by the likes of NickA that it reminds me of the comment someone made after the first performance of Beethoven's 5th...when he tried to put on his hat he couldn't find his head.

Also, I don't believe materialistic thinking is a factor in any of this. Since everything in the universe from brains to poop is made of star stuff everything which derives from it including the rarefied moments of spiritual rumblings is based on the Material and its endless variations. There is more mystery and magic in chemistry than in metaphysics.

[Belinda]

Dubious wrote:

There is more mystery and magic in chemistry than in metaphysics.

That is a spiritual utterance.
Because it's expressive in feeling tone and it expresses a value concept.

An utterance with the same content but not spiritual would have read

"Chemistry, unlike metaphysics, yields facts."

The speaker may indeed feel passionately about chemistry and evaluate it very positively however in my example these are not expressed and so the utterance lacks spirituality.

This entire post of mine is not spiritual by my intention despite that intellectual arguments stimulate my energy.
Finally, the meaning of a word is its use(Wittgenstein).

In consideration of the above post from Dubious, I'd tend to use the 'spiritual' words as Dubious describes. I have read quite a few of Conde's posts and conclude that he is a spiritual person at least by virtue of his tenacious search for truth.

As for evidences of spirituality in this forum the criteria I'd choose are lack of respect for blatant authority, curiosity about the natural world, unbounded curiosity about ideas, generous willingness to embrace uncertainty, and a smidgin at least of affection for the expressive arts. However that is just me speaking and I hope that whoever I talk to would be sufficiently spiritual to fit at least one of the above criteria.

[Conde Lucanor]

Secular spirituality is an oxymoron which flat-lines the very idea of itself. Spiritual experiences do not need to be modified into secular or theistic as distinct from the other.

The more I listen to people referring to "spirituality" from a non-theistic perspective, the more I am convinced that it is a useless, limited concept, which has dragged with it more or less the same problems it had from the theistic perspective.

Yes, secular spirituality is an (ostensibly) impractical, useless and limited concept. Art and musical appreciation are similarly useless, limited and impractical.

You're making a false analogy. By calling it a "useless, limited concept", I implied that it's improductive for knowledge, that it confuses things more than it clarifies. So, no, it has nothing to do with any utilitarian concept, except of course that concepts must be worth something for our intellectual life. I don't know where you got that idea.

However, some people are not so ascetically devoted to duty and productivity as to deny themselves (ostensibly) "useless" but enjoyable aspects of life that utilise their emotional capacities. Secular spirituality is like blue skies research - it appears pointless but the act of exploration necessarily brings opportunity. Let the serious ones forge forward efficiently and effectively with their blinkers on. Horses for courses, as they say.

People not only have emotional capacities, which apparently is where emphasis is put when talking about "spirituality". They also have higher cognitive capacities which have nothing to do with mystical raptures.

[Greta]

The more I listen to people referring to "spirituality" from a non-theistic perspective, the more I am convinced that it is a useless, limited concept, which has dragged with it more or less the same problems it had from the theistic perspective.

Yes, secular spirituality is an (ostensibly) impractical, useless and limited concept. Art and musical appreciation are similarly useless, limited and impractical.

You're making a false analogy. By calling it a "useless, limited concept", I implied that it's improductive for knowledge, that it confuses things more than it clarifies. So, no, it has nothing to do with any utilitarian concept, except of course that concepts must be worth something for our intellectual life. I don't know where you got that idea.

No, I am making a very precise analogy that is entirely logical. Spirituality is much the same as creativity and active art appreciation, a focus on things that are nourishing to the soul or, since that is another s-word that bothers you, our emotions and minds. So much for the poetry of life, reduced to bits, bytes and "utilitarian concepts". Your post reminds me of the Auditors of Reality in Terry Pratchett's The Thief of Time, who tried to understand art by examining its component atoms.

However, some people are not so ascetically devoted to duty and productivity as to deny themselves (ostensibly) "useless" but enjoyable aspects of life that utilise their emotional capacities. Secular spirituality is like blue skies research - it appears pointless but the act of exploration necessarily brings opportunity. Let the serious ones forge forward efficiently and effectively with their blinkers on. Horses for courses, as they say.

People not only have emotional capacities, which apparently is where emphasis is put when talking about "spirituality". They also have higher cognitive capacities which have nothing to do with mystical raptures.

I do not consider emotions as trivial as you do, nor their relationship with higher thought, which is often a trigger for peak experiences.

Have you ever, in contemplation, been completely mentally blown out of the water by the scale and complex nature of the reality? Have you, when in nature, felt great love for, and gratitude to, the Earth?

[Greta]

I am leaving the conversation now. Conde, feel free to ignore my prior post. Thanks to most of you for a chat that was mostly conducted with intelligence and goodwill.

As things stand, I don't want to spoil something I enjoy in life by associating it with debates and unpleasant interactions. Some things are better experienced than talked about, and the latter can directly reduce the quality of the former. Writers refer to the process as "talking out their ideas".

[Conde Lucanor]

Sorry that I (unintentionally) do not give you the last word, but I cannot leave unattended such a big misunderstanding. In any case, you too have the choice of disregarding this post.

No, I am making a very precise analogy that is entirely logical. Spirituality is much the same as creativity and active art appreciation, a focus on things that are nourishing to the soul or, since that is another s-word that bothers you, our emotions and minds.

I've been talking all the time (even when you made the false analogy) about the concept conveyed by the term "secular spirituality". As I had said before, I never thought there was something concrete behind that label that necessarily people will have to deal with in their lives (it's like joining a book club) and therefore, I'm not arguing for a particular content that will make the term more acceptable. Again, I'm not saying what "secular spirituality" is or ought to be, and that applies for the term "spirituality" alone, too.

So much for the poetry of life, reduced to bits, bytes and "utilitarian concepts". Your post reminds me of the Auditors of Reality in Terry Pratchett's The Thief of Time, who tried to understand art by examining its component atoms.

I do not consider emotions as trivial as you do, nor their relationship with higher thought, which is often a trigger for peak experiences.

I have never said emotions are trivial, nor my refusal to embrace the concept of "secular spirituality" means in any sense that I promote an utilitarian view of life, as if all of the sudden, "secular spiritualists", whoever they are, had monopolized access to things that "nourish the soul". That's nonsense and confirms my suspicion that just exactly as theists do when referring to spirituality, the term is used as a way to balance the prejudiced concept they have of the term "materialism", and to pretend the attainment of a superior level in human flourishing, kind of a priesthood level in secularism, which unfortunately seems to navigate only in the waters of romanticism. Make a big display of emotions or you're a soulless, hollow mannequin.

Have you ever, in contemplation, been completely mentally blown out of the water by the scale and complex nature of the reality? Have you, when in nature, felt great love for, and gratitude to, the Earth?

Do I need to say this? I have always felt both attraction and respect for nature. The games of my infancy were played among trees, mud, insects, and dozens of other animals. I hate urban life (would prefer to live deep in the forest or at the top of a mountain), but I find myself fortunate that my city is surrounded by natural spectacles just a few miles away. I feel a special connection with the themes of wolves and my favorite poem from childhood it titled "The Wolf's Motives", which features none other than St. Francis of Assisi. I connect with Hesse's quote about trees being like sanctuaries. I love the sublimeness in some music and surely, as any other human being, I seek for "peak experiences" that leave lasting impressions. I don't think any of that is particularly related to a mind setup or lifestyle that could be labeled "spiritual" in the same sense that theists or dualists understand it. And I also don't think that pure rational analysis or practical tasks belong to a lower dimension than those that look more joyful or inspiring. If we were forced to use the term "spiritual", the work of a methodical librarian is as spiritual as that of a gospel singer, and that's for what they both have in common: they are found at the top levels of the human hierarchy of needs.

[Greta]

Conde, I have just read the first sentence of your post, had a chuckle, and decided to stay out. Thus you have not only the last word, but all the words that you wish.

It would be stimulating to continue debating, but in the past I've too often been cavalier in dipping my mind in areas best left to spontaneity; discretion being the better part of valour for me in this one. Sorry to cop out but, on the plus side, I'd probably start being repetitive after all these pages anyway.

My baton is officially passed to anyone keen to take it

[Belinda]

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Make a big display of emotions or you're a soulless, hollow mannequin.

Does 'spiritual' translate into a Latin language? I'd not call an emotionally labile exhibitionist a spiritual person.

[Conde Lucanor]

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Make a big display of emotions or you're a soulless, hollow mannequin.

Does 'spiritual' translate into a Latin language? I'd not call an emotionally labile exhibitionist a spiritual person.

It is "espiritual" in Spanish. As far as I know, it has the same meaning in all Romanic languages. Actually, the English word shares the same Latin root, which meant 'breath'. I think that's what it meant originally for jews, until the Alexandrian jews introduced the Greek notions of an immaterial soul (thus, the disputes about the meaning of "soul" in the Septuagint Bible).

Most people calling themselves "spiritual" devote an important amount of time and efforts to exhibit it.