It's not uncommon being human to think poetically of nature but it's only that, our poetic reaction which invests it with spiritual significance. Nature itself doesn't have any and, more to the point, can also appear as a truly malevolent demiurge whose means of inflicting total misery on its creatures are hardly uplifting, beautiful or inspiring while still remaining interesting, challenging and totally shocking. Within "the pleroma of time", Nature "levels" with its indifference the highs & lows of which we are cognizant. It doesn't and shouldn't preempt the feelings you describe while realizing these are only and nothing but our feelings on reflection.Greta wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:12 amYes, love is just a sentiment. I am enchanted (at a safe distance) by the Earth, geology, biology, evolution, space, stars, black holes, time, energy, galaxies and the fascinating fractal relationships and dynamics that keep occurring at various scales. For me, these things are beautiful, interesting, uplifting, inspiring and challenging. Some might say that's not spirituality, but all things have a particular way of being, and that way of being can be thought of as its character or nature or, more poetically, it can be thought of as its spirit.Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:09 pmThere are those who feel spiritual about the universe. It's a feeling not unknown to me even though it has almost evaporated. Spirituality re the universe is a purely human sentiment with nothing more to it...a phenomena of time, space and process, impersonal in every sense. What we qualify as deep mystery, surrounding such with a halo of spirituality, only amounts to our lack of comprehension. Gaps, especially those that seem impervious to solution, are the catalysts to these mystical feelings. We must have these yearnings to "secularize" these mysteries with each new solution or viable theory though some will likely remain grounded in the human brain failing to achieve escape velocity. To that extent, these astral feelings may persist.Greta wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:14 am
Yes, but the process from then to now is worth thinking about. He (actually Sagan) was trying to put across the degree of our integration with the rest of nature, a seemingly obvious notion often not appreciated by those influenced by the religious notions of human divinity embedded in many cultures.
Being neither distinctly secular or theistic, spirituality is an instinct which leads, guides and resolves in all kinds of directions. Put analogically in the context of biology, if it weren't for sex hormones forcing the impulse, humans would never be in danger of over-producing.
BTW, I didn't say that love is just a sentiment. If it were then empathy would also have to be one, an assumption that leads to an oxymoron since empathy ranges in power and effect far beyond any mere sentiment one could have.