How Can P-Realists Understand Anti-Realism?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Since there is no absolute meaning to any word, I believe the precise definition and context used is critical.

Spirituality as "inner life" may be more acceptable since that would dissociate spirituality from its very common association with religion and spirits.
But then "inner life" would also be a very wide term but I think it is critical to complement 'inner' with 'outer' life.

A problem with the definition of spirituality is that it cannot be expected to be objective, since spirituality is based on subjectivity, the experience of the subject. This means that our idea of spirituality needs to be conceived as something dependent on our today’s culture; we must expect that tomorrow we might have a different definition and idea of spirituality. So, the definition of spirituality has to be considered as something that works for us, today, here.

An essential and useful criterion for a good definition is that it must include the possibility for everybody, in any of their typical activity, not to be excluded from being able to conceive themselves as “spiritual”. Today even atheists claim their ability to have their spirituality. In other words, a definition of spirituality must make impossible to tell anybody “You are not spiritual, what you do is not or doesn’t have spirituality”: this would mean discrimination, racism, marginalization, offence. The consequence of this principle is that, if we have to respect it, “spirituality” must mean something like “everything”; this would mean that spirituality has absolutely no meaning.

However, we instinctively, subjectively, have some feeling that spirituality is not something completely void of any meaning, any identification, it is not “everything”. Then we need to explore what this feeling is, how we can express it. The solution to this difficulty is in the awareness of the flexibility of the meaning of spirituality. The meaning of spirituality is flexible because it is a mix of subjective feelings and, let’s say, more objective critical observations. The idea of “subjective feeling” takes us to the popular perception of spirituality as something that refers to the perception or connection to invisible, even inexpressible, entities, forces, energies. The objective critical observation reminds us that “spirituality” must be able to include those who do not believe in the existence of anything non material.

The definition “inner life” is able to fit all of these requirements exactly because it is extensible, flexible, but, at the same time, from an instinctive point of view, it is not completely vague. The consequence is that those who want to say something rigorous, serious, academical, about spirituality, need everytime to state first some clarifications about what they mean by “spirituality” or “inner life”.

At the same time, those who don’t feel an urgent, serious, need of being precise, can use the expressions “spirituality” or “inner life” without being afraid that they mean absolutely nothing. They have a meaning, people perceive that they have a meaning.

With deeper reflective thinking, I believe the idea of "spirituality" and its ultimate root cause manifest from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis driven by an evolutionary default, i.e.

• 1. All humans are evolved with a neural algorithm that triggers terrible primal fears upon any threat of impending potential death, this is to facilitate the basic survival of the individuals, groups and the human species.
  
  2. For good reasons, only humans are endowed with a reasonable self-awareness.
  
  3. Unfortunately, all humans are self-aware of the threat of certainty of mortality [death]; this triggers 1, i.e. constant terrible primal fears.
  
  4. To ensure basic survival, humans are also evolved with inhibitors to modulate the arising fears from 3.
  
  5. But the inhibitors are not fully effective and there is leakage within the subconscious manifesting as inherent unavoidable existential angsts.

Since humans became more self-aware of their mortality, they have been engaged in an internal struggle to modulate [which cannot be eliminated] the unavoidable existential angsts.
It is likely this "internal struggle" existential crisis had been going on for hundreds of thousands of years via animism, paganism, primitive and modern religions and it is only relatively lately that the word 'spirituality' was coined to represent this internal struggle and its various actions.

Fortunately for humans, the unavoidable existential angsts could be suppressed immediately with beliefs with animism, paganism, primitive and modern religions, e.g. just believe in an independent supreme entity and viola salvation is promised which soothed the existential angsts.
I believe this same independence is extended to realists [philosophical] as driven by the existential angsts manifested in language.

This "internal struggle" of an existential crisis is generic for all humans, thus this is why even atheism has claimed for 'spirituality'. Btw, Buddhism is an atheistic religion, so are the Jains and some others.

As such, I hypothesize, the ultimate root cause of 'spirituality' is linked to the inherent unvoidable existential crisis and its related existential angsts related to inevitable mortality.

I believe when we review Hadot's and the ancient spiritual exercises, the greater weight is those related to dealing with 'death'. This is the same with all religions either via soteriological beliefs, "spirituality" or modulating the existential angsts as in Buddhism.

Spirituality in this case is negative i.e. to mitigate the inherent potential terrible primal fears and angsts.

On the other hand, philosophy per se [as a way of life (total)] is "positive" i.e. proactive in moving forward with 'spirituality' [partial] as its subset.
I believe both philosophy and its subset spirituality are grounded within the inner life.

Your views on the above?

[Angelo Cannata]

I think what you wrote reflects Heidegger's idea that being is fundamentally being towards death, so that this condition affects anything we think about and anything we do, so, I agree.
In this context I think that we perceive evil, suffering, violence or death, however we call it, as something inescapable; as such, we, from our subjectivity, perceive it as if it was real, external, objective. In this context, I think that metaphysics, reality, objectivity, truth, certainty, staticity, however we want to call it, coincides with evil. On the other side, good coincides with subjectivity. As a consequence, I would express Heidegger's criterion of being towards death as a dialectic between subjectivity and what we perceive as the inescapable objectivity of death, evil.
In this context I think that the way to positivity is the way of weakness, uncertainty, subjectivity, doubt, non-violence, historicity, attempts, fragments, humbleness, becoming. We try (which is a criterion of "attempts") to oppose the metaphysics of death by practicing a radical criticism that comes from doubting about these structures and tries a style of non-violence.
This can be considered, I think, spirituality and inner life: the human attempt to make positivity to exist as subjectivity, non-violence, doubt, coexistence, peace. We have no idea if this positivity can exist; it might be just an illusion, just another way, a clever way how negativity and death make their inescapable ways in this world. But uncertainty is exactly the ground upon which we try to make a difference exist. We cannot escape death, but death cannot escape doubting and the alternative world of weakness. The moment a lion is devouring a gazelle, in that exact moment he is automatically creating the world of the dying gazelle, an alternative world of weakness, defeat, uncertainty, non-violence, that is instantly challenging his world of power and victory. This looks to me very similar to the logical mechanism how realism creates automatically anti-realism.
Obviously, from a human point of view, the weak alternative, the defeat alternative, is not so comfortable, nor easy, nor so pleasant. But, in the middle of this way of suffering, it seems to me that we can experience an intimate, microscopic, alternative universe that is able to attract, to touch, to capivate our heart and drive it towards something that we would call love, opening of possibility of peace. It isn't, and it cannot be, anything guaranteed, otherwise it would be just another metaphysics. We talk about this alternative in a context of subjective narrative, historicity, local experience, art, that has nothing established, nothing certain, no objective evidence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think what you wrote reflects Heidegger's idea that being is fundamentally being towards death, so that this condition affects anything we think about and anything we do, so, I agree.
In this context I think that we perceive evil, suffering, violence or death, however we call it, as something inescapable; as such, we, from our subjectivity, perceive it as if it was real, external, objective. In this context, I think that metaphysics, reality, objectivity, truth, certainty, staticity, however we want to call it, coincides with evil. On the other side, good coincides with subjectivity. As a consequence, I would express Heidegger's criterion of being towards death as a dialectic between subjectivity and what we perceive as the inescapable objectivity of death, evil.

I noted Heidegger was also influenced by Buddhism via his mentor[?] Husserl.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -44764-3_4

Buddhism's main focus within the 4 Noble Truths [4NT] is the mother of all sufferings, i.e. the terrible fears from the consciousness of the inescapability of mortality and how to deal with it.
This is seem to be a limitation of Buddhism, but the Buddha understood the impulse to progress [to be one-up on the present] is inherent in human nature.
As such once a person is able to master [in varying degrees] the 4NTs, whatever positive that is instinctual will follow.

In some ways, Buddhism's focus on the 4NT had hindered progress within Buddhists.
However, in contrast to most Abrahamic religion, Buddhism welcome Science;

• If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
  https://www.dalailama.com/news/2005/our ... in-science

However, I would not link the inevitability of mortality with 'evil', i.e. it is a natural fact of life that need to be managed and modulated.
Instead my definition of evil is 'any thing that is net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.
In this case, the concept of intentional-premature-death committed by anyone is evil as a moral principle.

In this context I think that the way to positivity is the way of weakness, uncertainty, subjectivity, doubt, non-violence, historicity, attempts, fragments, humbleness, becoming. We try (which is a criterion of "attempts") to oppose the metaphysics of death by practicing a radical criticism that comes from doubting about these structures and tries a style of non-violence.
This can be considered, I think, spirituality and inner life: the human attempt to make positivity to exist as subjectivity, non-violence, doubt, coexistence, peace. We have no idea if this positivity can exist; it might be just an illusion, just another way, a clever way how negativity and death make their inescapable ways in this world. But uncertainty is exactly the ground upon which we try to make a difference exist.

I am not too sure of your points above.

I believe the way to positivity are the following;
1. Deal with inevitable mortality and its associated primal fears with the "spiritual exercises" as advocated by Hadot, the ancient philosophers, Buddhism and other of the like. This would be 'spirituality' a subset of inner life and philosophy.
2. Promote the progress and well being of individuals & humanity via the sciences and the arts. This is philosophy in essence.
3. To deal with greater threats of catastrophic and galactical scale, e.g. a pandemic, or a large rogue asteroid coming toward Earth, and others of the like.

We cannot escape death, but death cannot escape doubting and the alternative world of weakness. The moment a lion is devouring a gazelle, in that exact moment he is automatically creating the world of the dying gazelle, an alternative world of weakness, defeat, uncertainty, non-violence, that is instantly challenging his world of power and victory. This looks to me very similar to the logical mechanism how realism creates automatically anti-realism.
Obviously, from a human point of view, the weak alternative, the defeat alternative, is not so comfortable, nor easy, nor so pleasant. But, in the middle of this way of suffering, it seems to me that we can experience an intimate, microscopic, alternative universe that is able to attract, to touch, to capivate our heart and drive it towards something that we would call love, opening of possibility of peace. It isn't, and it cannot be, anything guaranteed, otherwise it would be just another metaphysics. We talk about this alternative in a context of subjective narrative, historicity, local experience, art, that has nothing established, nothing certain, no objective evidence.

Not too sure of the above.
For a p-realist to understand [not necessary agree with] initially, the p-realist need to understand the evolutionary default [explained in the previous posts] that had entrapped him into p-realism as an ideology.
Then he will need to practice the 'spiritual exercises' [Hadot, etc.] to release his dogmatism from the ideology of p-realism to embrace empirical-realism and anti-p-realism.

There are two main types of realism, i.e.
1. philosophical realism based on absolute mind-independence and
2. empirical realism based on relative mind-independence.

There is no denial, within common and conventional sense, there are things that are independent of the human self, i.e. the apple on the tree is independent of the person separate by a distance of space. But this relative mind-independence of empirical realism is subsumed within inevitable anti-realism.

From the above discussion, I am refreshing on Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations".

Your views on the above?

[Angelo Cannata]

Once it is clear that I am a philosophical anti-realist, whatever I said in my previous post has to be interpreted as suggestions, hypotheses, hermeneutics, that I, subjectively, personally, find useful. I try to keep clear this perspective by saying frequently “in my opinion...”, “personally...”, “I think...”. So, for example, when I describe my views about the way to positivity, they are just hermeneutics that I personally find useful. The same applies when we talk about death and evil. In this context, I think there isn’t much point in considering that death is just

... a natural fact of life that need to be managed and modulated.

This way of considering death can be useful if we are talking about the perspective of science, computers, Artificial Intelligence, or the technics to use in medicine. Since our context is anti-realism and, as such, subjectivity, it seems clear to me that, from a subjective point of view, death cannot be considered in a cold scientific way. We might suspect that our subjective concepts about death are also conditioned by our culture and history. In this context, I think that the behaviour of animals and human babies is a useful reference point as beings whose perceptions can hardly be considered culturally conditioned. It seems clear to me that the behaviour of animals and babies shows that their perception, their experience of death is something deeply unwanted, emotionally traumatizing, harrowing, sad, bitter. Obviously, even emotions themselves are, from a cold scientific point of view, just mechanisms, but in a context of subjectivity and anti-realism, we cannot adopt just cold perspectives. That’s the reason why I am quite skeptical and suspicious about all those spiritualities and philosophies that try to get control of emotions. If this control is for a higher emotional purpose, such as peace, non-violence, forgiveness, then I agree, it is good to control and even sometimes to repress our feelings and instincts. But, when I perceive that this control is practiced in a context of cultivating some kind of spiritual superiority that, at the end, is based on some metaphysics, I find more human the Christian perspective, where suffering, at a certain point, when it cannot be avoided, has to be considered as something that we have to go through, a cup that we need to drink, letting all of its bitterness enter our feelings, our body. We must avoid any form of masochism, obviously, we need also to do everything that is made available by science, such as medicine, doctors, psychologists, but I think we also need to protect our humanity. Now, obviously, I am assuming an idea of what “humanity” means that is very subjective, but it has some reference points, as I said, on the behaviour of babies and animals. Obviously, “humanity” is also in a condition of natural evolution, like all animals and natural things, so that there isn’t a stage of this evolution that we can consider as the reference point of what “humanity” has to be. In this context, I am just expressing my personal sensitivity about what I feel important and good now, today, in this world, about “humanity”.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Once it is clear that I am a philosophical anti-realist, whatever I said in my previous post has to be interpreted as suggestions, hypotheses, hermeneutics, that I, subjectively, personally, find useful. I try to keep clear this perspective by saying frequently “in my opinion...”, “personally...”, “I think...”. So, for example, when I describe my views about the way to positivity, they are just hermeneutics that I personally find useful. The same applies when we talk about death and evil.

When the focus is solely on the "I" would that be too subjective, i.e. 100% subjective?

What about intersubjectivity which is based on the convergence of a collective of subjects and their shared values; the preferred values [intersubjectively] are those which are evidence based supported by rationality and critical thinking.

In this context, I think there isn’t much point in considering that death is just

... a natural fact of life that need to be managed and modulated.

This way of considering death can be useful if we are talking about the perspective of science, computers, Artificial Intelligence, or the technics to use in medicine. Since our context is anti-realism and, as such, subjectivity, it seems clear to me that, from a subjective point of view, death cannot be considered in a cold scientific way. We might suspect that our subjective concepts about death are also conditioned by our culture and history.
In this context, I think that the behaviour of animals and human babies is a useful reference point as beings whose perceptions can hardly be considered culturally conditioned.
It seems clear to me that the behaviour of animals and babies shows that their perception, their experience of death is something deeply unwanted, emotionally traumatizing, harrowing, sad, bitter.

It is evident that humans are evolved with a high sense of self-awareness that is way different in a very contrasting degree from non-human animals.
While babies do not have a high degree of self-awareness, they [all normal] as humans will develop the unavoidable average self-awareness, the ego, intelligence, etc. that is of human nature.
With the above, it is inevitable all humans will face an existential crisis with reference to the certainty of mortality while drive with fears upon any threat of death.
There are pros and cons for being like animals & babies and being adults humans with reference to the above.
As such we have to optimize [balance and rationalize] the pros within the cons.
But optimize against what norms, standards or objectives or nothing at all?

Obviously, even emotions themselves are, from a cold scientific point of view, just mechanisms, but in a context of subjectivity and anti-realism, we cannot adopt just cold perspectives. That’s the reason why I am quite skeptical and suspicious about all those spiritualities and philosophies that try to get control of emotions. If this control is for a higher emotional purpose, such as peace, non-violence, forgiveness, then I agree, it is good to control and even sometimes to repress our feelings and instincts. But, when I perceive that this control is practiced in a context of cultivating some kind of spiritual superiority that, at the end, is based on some metaphysics, I find more human the Christian perspective, where suffering, at a certain point, when it cannot be avoided, has to be considered as something that we have to go through, a cup that we need to drink, letting all of its bitterness enter our feelings, our body.
We must avoid any form of masochism, obviously, we need also to do everything that is made available by science, such as medicine, doctors, psychologists, but I think we also need to protect our humanity. Now, obviously, I am assuming an idea of what “humanity” means that is very subjective, but it has some reference points, as I said, on the behaviour of babies and animals. Obviously, “humanity” is also in a condition of natural evolution, like all animals and natural things, so that there isn’t a stage of this evolution that we can consider as the reference point of what “humanity” has to be. In this context, I am just expressing my personal sensitivity about what I feel important and good now, today, in this world, about “humanity”.

As above, but optimize against what norms, standards or objectives or nothing at all?

According to Kant, life can be summed up philosophically as;
1. What can I know? -epistemology
2. What can I do? Morality
3. What can I hope for? perpetual peace?
The above comprised a lot of other complex details.

In optimizing the objectives [as determined?] in life, there is a need to modulate the emotions [explicit and subtle] that arise from inevitable mortality and whatever is life's objectives.

In your New Spirituality, do you have something like Kant's 3 questions, or if different, how do you propose individual[s] should traverse the journey of life.

[Angelo Cannata]

When the focus is solely on the "I" would that be too subjective, i.e. 100% subjective?

What about intersubjectivity which is based on the convergence of a collective of subjects and their shared values; the preferred values [intersubjectively] are those which are evidence based supported by rationality and critical thinking.

I agree. If subjectivity doesn’t pay attention to other people’s subjectivity, then the “I” subjectivity becomes automatically the metaphysical reference point, as to say “I am the truth, I am the reality, I am the objectivity”, even behind the apparent humility of saying “I think...”, “in my opinion...”: this would mean being a Hitler.

...optimize against what norms, standards or objectives or nothing at all?

According to Kant, life can be summed up philosophically as;
1. What can I know? -epistemology
2. What can I do? Morality
3. What can I hope for? perpetual peace?
The above comprised a lot of other complex details.

In optimizing the objectives [as determined?] in life, there is a need to modulate the emotions [explicit and subtle] that arise from inevitable mortality and whatever is life's objectives.

In your New Spirituality, do you have something like Kant's 3 questions, or if different, how do you propose individual[s] should traverse the journey of life.

I think that all questions, including the kantian’s one you quoted, can be a bit dangerous, because they can create in our mind an expectation, a quest, for conclusive answers; but conclusive answers, just because they are assumed to be conclusive, are automatically realist, metaphysical. I think that the very concept of “conclusion” is very dangerous, although, we know, it is quite impossible not to make use of it in ordinary language, in daily life.

My recipe, my formula, to traverse the journey of life, is quite identical to the very expression that you used: “traverse the journey of life”. In other words, my starting point is the idea that everything is becoming, nothing is still, stable, conclusive, definitive (Heraclitus). In a more existential, human way, I like to express this as “walking”, or “growing”: we are all walkers in the path of life.

Once we have clarified, this, we can specify some essential criterions and things to do while we move in this walking.

One essential thing, in my opinion, is a work of listening to the past and to the present and testing plans for the future. For example, let’s assume that I have killed somebody. I think it is not good just to make the plan not to kill in the future. We need first to listen and interpret: why did this happen? We try to adopt a hermeneutics and we test it by building a consequent plan. After some time, we check how things have gone, which is again listening to the past; we correct or change our hermenutics and we make new plans, to see again if and how the new plans will work better.

In this work, an essential criterion is to shape ourselves, to educate, to make better, endlessly, ourselves, in all aspects, as much as possible, as good as possible. In this context, our life is essentially a work of self education, from our birth to our death. Even when I just want to relax and enjoy some kind of pleasure, I will do it in a context of educating myself to have a good presence in me of ability to relax, to enjoy, to be spontaneous, even to not reflect, for a certain while.

Another thing is that, while I am walking, I can look at other people who are walking close to me; we can compare our ways of walking and help each other to make our growth, our self education, better and better.

Another point is criticism and self-criticism. Whenever I listen to somebody, or read a book, or go to a conference, one first thing that I try to find in the context of that person is if there are traces of self-criticism. If self-criticism is absent, then that person, usually unintentionally, has fallen in the problems and naiveties of dogmatism, realism. Frequently I make questions exactly to check if that person is aware that what they are saying can be criticized: nothing in this world is free from criticism, everything can be criticized.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When the focus is solely on the "I" would that be too subjective, i.e. 100% subjective?

What about intersubjectivity which is based on the convergence of a collective of subjects and their shared values; the preferred values [intersubjectively] are those which are evidence based supported by rationality and critical thinking.

I agree. If subjectivity doesn’t pay attention to other people’s subjectivity, then the “I” subjectivity becomes automatically the metaphysical reference point, as to say “I am the truth, I am the reality, I am the objectivity”, even behind the apparent humility of saying “I think...”, “in my opinion...”: this would mean being a Hitler.

If intersubjectivity [which is objectivity?] is of human nature, then we need at least be holding to a compass with some sort of initial compass point [at least tentative] to guide us to traverse the journey of life [?].
[?] my use of "?" meant the point is very open ended.

...optimize against what norms, standards or objectives or nothing at all?

According to Kant, life can be summed up philosophically as;
1. What can I know? -epistemology
2. What can I do? Morality
3. What can I hope for? perpetual peace?
The above comprised a lot of other complex details.

In optimizing the objectives [as determined?] in life, there is a need to modulate the emotions [explicit and subtle] that arise from inevitable mortality and whatever is life's objectives.

In your New Spirituality, do you have something like Kant's 3 questions, or if different, how do you propose individual[s] should traverse the journey of life.

I think that all questions, including the kantian’s one you quoted, can be a bit dangerous, because they can create in our mind an expectation, a quest, for conclusive answers; but conclusive answers, just because they are assumed to be conclusive, are automatically realist, metaphysical. I think that the very concept of “conclusion” is very dangerous, although, we know, it is quite impossible not to make use of it in ordinary language, in daily life.

Whatever the conclusions they have to be within an iterative loop* for continuous improvement and room for doubts.
*Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

The Iterative Loop:

• 1. Right 1. Is it the the 'Right' epistemology
  2. Rights 2-8 right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
  3. Conclusion on the above
  4. Go back to 1 and repeat

As such, because of inherent subjectivity [& fallibility] and to avoid any danger, whatever the 'conclusion' we must leave room for doubts and keep going iteratively within the whole set of questions with whatever the resultants.

My recipe, my formula, to traverse the journey of life, is quite identical to the very expression that you used: “traverse the journey of life”. In other words, my starting point is the idea that everything is becoming, nothing is still, stable, conclusive, definitive (Heraclitus). In a more existential, human way, I like to express this as “walking”, or “growing”: we are all walkers in the path of life.

Once we have clarified, this, we can specify some essential criterions and things to do while we move in this walking.

One essential thing, in my opinion, is a work of listening to the past and to the present and testing plans for the future. For example, let’s assume that I have killed somebody. I think it is not good just to make the plan not to kill in the future. We need first to listen and interpret: why did this happen? We try to adopt a hermeneutics and we test it by building a consequent plan.
After some time, we check how things have gone, which is again listening to the past; we correct or change our hermenutics and we make new plans, to see again if and how the new plans will work better.

Your last part is the same as what I proposed above with the 4NT-8FP on a iterative basis, i.e. it will keep going on and on progressively [netted wise].

In this work, an essential criterion is to shape ourselves, to educate, to make better, endlessly, ourselves, in all aspects, as much as possible, as good as possible. In this context, our life is essentially a work of self education, from our birth to our death. Even when I just want to relax and enjoy some kind of pleasure, I will do it in a context of educating myself to have a good presence in me of ability to relax, to enjoy, to be spontaneous, even to not reflect, for a certain while.

Another thing is that, while I am walking, I can look at other people who are walking close to me; we can compare our ways of walking and help each other to make our growth, our self education, better and better.

Another point is criticism and self-criticism. Whenever I listen to somebody, or read a book, or go to a conference, one first thing that I try to find in the context of that person is if there are traces of self-criticism. If self-criticism is absent, then that person, usually unintentionally, has fallen in the problems and naiveties of dogmatism, realism. Frequently I make questions exactly to check if that person is aware that what they are saying can be criticized: nothing in this world is free from criticism, everything can be criticized.

To be effective with the above, there have to be a least some sort of model, e.g. the Life Improvement and Problem-solving technique like the 4NT-8FP.
In any case a problem-solving model is generally generic with its main features, e.g.

8-Step Problem Solving Process

One thing with human nature is that humans has hundreds homeostatic mechanisms markers and perhaps up to a thousand submarkers which are physiological, mental and chemical. e.g. pain is trigger when the body is below certain limits, e.g. hunger, lack of oxygen, etc.
All these constraints and limits set boundaries to what human can or cannot act.
That these homeostatic markers exist infer they must be corralling human life in some sort of general direction [objectives] towards a compass point.
What is that general teleological objective? We have to find out.
It is biological and organic not metaphysical.

Thus while we focus on the outward contours of life we need to know the more complex nuances [e.g. the homeostatic markers, etc.] within.
It is only from here that we can reconcile p-realism to anti-p_realism and therefrom traverse the journey of life optimally.

Your views on the above?

[Angelo Cannata]

... some sort of initial compass point [at least tentative]...

I see in your words a tension between the need for something determined (compass) and the need to be anti-realisr (tentative).
I think that anti-realists are condemned to this difficulty, because language itself, language as such, is an ambiguous thing we are immersed into. The interpretation of any sentence can be bent, distorted, and these distortions are not just in the mind of interpreters: they are already, at the very start, contained in language itself.
I think the best we can do is inviting people to go, as much as they can, beyond our words, trying to make an idea about our intentions. I understand that this puts again a lot of confusion and ambiguity in our communication, but I cannot see any solution to this problem at the moment. Ultimately, it is the tension between analytical and continental philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

... some sort of initial compass point [at least tentative]...

I see in your words a tension between the need for something determined (compass) and the need to be anti-realisr (tentative).
I think that anti-realists are condemned to this difficulty, because language itself, language as such, is an ambiguous thing we are immersed into. The interpretation of any sentence can be bent, distorted, and these distortions are not just in the mind of interpreters: they are already, at the very start, contained in language itself.
I think the best we can do is inviting people to go, as much as they can, beyond our words, trying to make an idea about our intentions. I understand that this puts again a lot of confusion and ambiguity in our communication, but I cannot see any solution to this problem at the moment. Ultimately, it is the tension between analytical and continental philosophy.

Ideally all humans should strive and reach a certain state of spontaneity [like animals and babies] whilst endow with the highest optimal intelligence and self-awareness.
This is critical because animals [non-humans] do not have the necessary potential to save mankind and others from the threat of a rogue meteorite destroying earth, a serious pandemic, climate change, and the like.

The dilemma is whilst evolved with the necessary self-awareness, personal identity, intelligence to deal with the potential global threats, it is inevitable the higher evolved humans are also aware of the inevitable mortality that generate terrible primal fears, whilst suppressed still manifests as existential angsts.

So what is the way out of the above dilemma?

One way out is, I wrote this here:
viewtopic.php?p=686618#p686618

I believe nondualism-proper [applicable to the individuals] do have an influence in contributing positively to morality but one still need to understand fully what is morality about especially in relation to that of humanity.

Re Taoism it is Actionless-Action towards morality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

• Wu wei is an ancient Chinese concept literally meaning "inexertion", "inaction", or "effortless action".[a][1][2]
  ..........
  Describing a state of personal harmony, free-flowing spontaneity and laissez-faire, it generally also more properly denotes a state of spirit or mind, and in Confucianism accords with conventional morality.

While humans are driven to evolve towards that direction of a nondual state, the majority [99%] are very far from a reasonable level.

I believe the most effective approach at present for the majority is to be guided by a tentative compass point [like a lighthouse which is not the destination & that is subject to change] which must be inferred from empirical evidence and justified within a scientific FSK or some credible FSK.

Btw, whilst some may not agree, I believe Kant had bridged the gap between the continental and the analytical, in a way to bridging rationalism with empiricism via his Critical Philosophy.
Do you have any idea [just know and understand it, not agree with] of this within Kant's philosophy?

Heidegger critiqued Kant's Metaphysics, in his "Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics"
but I believe he misinterpreted Kant who condemned ontology and metaphysics of claimed to be real.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/803 ... etaphysics

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant_and_ ... #Reception
  Cassirer, like most Kant scholars, rejected Heidegger's interpretation of Kant. According to Michael J. Inwood, Heidegger implicitly abandoned some of the views he expounded in Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics in his subsequent work on Kant.

Personally, I believe the Buddhist's 4NT-8FP is the most effective methodology [can convert to a generic secular model] to resolve the above dilemma, but at present it is too advanced for the majority. [btw, I am not religious nor a Buddhist]

Since you mentioned Pierre Hadot in your article on spirituality, how much attention do you give to Hadot in your philosophy?
I did a refresher [read that long ago] on Hadot's 'Philosophy as a Way of Life' by Chase and found it worth the re-reading.

[Angelo Cannata]

Here is how I see the situation.
Realists are driven by our instinctive experience of reality. It is easy to show that they ignore their subjectivity. Anti-realists end up to the problems of language. Analytic philosophers try to get in control of the mechanisms and problems of language, but, this way, language becomes the new metaphysics, the new ground where truth dwells. Moreover, their study of language is, to a large extent, just science, science of language, instead of philosophy. Kant, Heidegger and everyone else fall, in my opinion, into the problem of conceiving philosophy as "understanding". The mentality of wanting to understand drives everyone into the problems of language, or unintentional building new metaphysics. This is in my opinion the problem with Buddhism: the moment they talk about truths, or right things, they are making use of a highly metaphisical language, without clarity about their intentions. There must be a reason why they say "the 4 truths" instead of "the 4 hypotheses" or "the 4 attempts".
That's why I think we need to stop conceiving philosophy as understanding: understanding is a task of science. Understanding is not forbidden in philosophy, but we need to make clear that we practice it as a game. We play a game for the pleasure of playing, but philosophy has forgotten it and it wants to play only to win, that is, to gain understanding. Art has not forgotten that we play for the pleasure of playing. That's why I think that philosophy should became again what it was: spirituality. In this context, spirituality means activity, practice, in opposition to understanding, getting knowledge, conclusions. In spirituality we play ideas as musical instruments, the same way we can play a guitar, or a piano. In this context we can experience a lot of seriousness, depth and pleasure in this activity of playing. Like in music, playing means also interpreting: we can enjoy interpretation the same way a pianist offers their interpretation of a score and they are even plaid and interpreted by the score, so that the player can become the musical instrument.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please include the quote for my related post, so I get notified.

Here is how I see the situation.
Realists are driven by our instinctive experience of reality.
It is easy to show that they ignore their subjectivity.

Agree with the above. They also forgot the inter-subject interaction with the collective-of-subjects.
The fundamental of Realism is mind-independence.
On a nuance perspective, I believe in Empirical Realism but that is ultimately subsumed within anti-realism.

Anti-realists end up to the problems of language.

I am not too sure of your point here.
To me, an anti-realist is one who oppose realism [philosophical or metaphysical] (p-realist).
There are many types of anti-realists, ranging from the many types of idealists and others.
My anti-realist refer to more like {not exactly} Kantian type.
It is likely, your reference to ‘anti-realist’ are those who adopt semantic realism, i.e. reality is linked to language.

Analytic philosophers try to get in control of the mechanisms and problems of language, but, this way, language becomes the new metaphysics, the new ground where truth dwells.
Moreover, their study of language is, to a large extent, just science, science of language, instead of philosophy.

Most Analytic philosophers are p-realists but some as pseudo-realists, e.g. Putnam’s Internal Realism.
Most [not all] are also stuck with semantic realism.
Analytic philosophy is ending on a dying trend or cycle.

Kant, Heidegger and everyone else fall, in my opinion, into the problem of conceiving philosophy as "understanding".
The mentality of wanting to understand drives everyone into the problems of language, or unintentional building new metaphysics.

I agree with you on the above, i.e. they focused on philosophical discourses [theories, principles, logic, analysis] but without the actual practical "spiritual exercises."
In the case of Kant, he stated he deliberately ignore actual practices [too expansive to deal with] so, prefer to focus on theories and principles; these are to be adopted by all humans as guides [lighthouses] in their everyday life.

In his famous work “The Critique of Pure Reason”, Immanuel Kant discusses the idea of a “good life”. He says we should aim to live a good life by doing what we love, being active and having a sense of purpose. We should also try to be compassionate and avoid harming others.
https://medium.com/personal-growth/imma ... f40fe4da62#:~

However, the above is still about ‘talk’ not ‘walk’ with no 'how to do the walking.'

This is in my opinion the problem with Buddhism: the moment they talk about truths, or right things, they are making use of a highly metaphysical language, without clarity about their intentions.
There must be a reason why they say "the 4 truths" instead of "the 4 hypotheses" or "the 4 attempts".
That's why I think we need to stop conceiving philosophy as understanding: understanding is a task of science.

The above is from a generalized-Buddhism view.
As I had mentioned earlier, there is a wide range of Buddhist Schools within Buddhism to cater for the wide range of human personalities and state of mental [‘spiritual’] development.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism

While Buddhism has very sophisticated philosophies [whilst not systematic like the Greeks and modern], the main focus of Buddhism-proper is the practices of how to live optimally. Here is a Parable of the Poisoned Arrow to emphasize the criticalness of practice over theory.

• Malunkyaputta demands answers to these questions [knowledge, theories], and threatens to quit Buddhist practice if he doesn’t receive them.
  The Buddha introduced "The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow."
  If one is hit by a poisoned arrow and insist in knowing the why, who and how of it, one will soon die. The effective practical solution is to pull out the arrow first and ask questions later.

So there are loads of ‘spiritual exercises’ [simple to highly sophisticated] to suit one’s personality and preferences grounded on the 4NT-8FP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_o ... _practices
Plus, there are milestones to guide one’s progress.

Suggest, where possible you research the above to avoid misrepresenting Buddhism-proper.

I believe the Buddhism-proper model can be converted to be a generic secular model stripped-off from any religious elements and complemented with other self-improvements features.

That's why I think we need to stop conceiving philosophy as understanding: understanding is a task of science.
Understanding is not forbidden in philosophy, but we need to make clear that we practice it as a game.
We play a game for the pleasure of playing, but philosophy has forgotten it and it wants to play only to win, that is, to gain understanding.
Art has not forgotten that we play for the pleasure of playing.

That's why I think that philosophy should became again what it was: spirituality.
In this context, spirituality means activity, practice, in opposition to understanding, getting knowledge, conclusions.
In spirituality we play ideas as musical instruments, the same way we can play a guitar, or a piano.
In this context we can experience a lot of seriousness, depth and pleasure in this activity of playing.
Like in music, playing means also interpreting: we can enjoy interpretation the same way a pianist offers their interpretation of a score and they are even plaid and interpreted by the score, so that the player can become the musical instrument.

I believe on average or even the majority will by better musician and produce better music in practice if they are equiped with a high level in theory of music than those who play by ear or intuition. [I have researched into theory of music, but I am not a good musician].

So far, re the ancient philosophers of Greece, I have come across ancient philosophies [Stoicism] that advocate ‘spiritual exercises’ [e.g. via Hadot] but they don’t lay out the actual exercises of the ‘how to do it’ in contrast to those of Hinduism, Buddhism and the likes.
Do you have references for such “how to do it” exercise from the ancient philosophers?

What about your ‘spirituality’ do you have actual “how to do it” exercises to increase the ‘spiritual quotient” of the individual[s]?

[Angelo Cannata]

What about your ‘spirituality’ do you have actual “how to do it” exercises to increase the ‘spiritual quotient” of the individual[s]?

Considering that “my” spirituality is based on “spirituality as such”, I think it is impossible to determine detailed practices that are supposed to work well for everybody. Personally, I have an instinct of rebellion when somebody tells me something like “now close your eyes”, “now breath deeply”, “nex week read this book”, “next month do 5 minutes a day of meditation”, “now let’s raise our arms”. I think that, once we have made a good idea about the most general criterions, everybody, or every group, can decide, can build, their practices, exercises and even rituals. In this context it wouldn’t be a problem to me if different groups that share this same spirituality have completely different practices and exercises.

If people have the problem of feeling unable to determine a practice, being stuck in a situation of lack of practical experiences, I think that good starting points are copying elements from particular religions or spiritualities, or “visiting” them. This needs a lot of work, because, obviously, it is not easy, for example, to make use of the Bible while being atheists at the same time. But, in this case, I think what we lack is not the ground, the theory, but just doing the task. I mean, at least to me, since I am familiar with the Bible, it is not a problem to read and meditate on it as a non believer: I know what kind of work needs to be done, I know how to make order on ideas in this situation; what I need is just time to do it. In this context, I feel like I have the plan how to build the house, I know how to make it; I just need time and energies to lay the bricks and turn the plan into a material, a real house.

This does not mean that my spirituality guarantees success; it is not a shallow, commercial spirituality for success and happiness. The best reference point about this is art: when an artist has clear ideas about what work of art they want to make, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they think that their work of art is going to be a success for sure. What is essential in the plan is that the artist feels her/his plan as authenthic, as a faithful expression of their soul and as an optimal instrument for growth of humanity. Everything else is secondary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What about your ‘spirituality’ do you have actual “how to do it” exercises to increase the ‘spiritual quotient” of the individual[s]?

Considering that “my” spirituality is based on “spirituality as such”, I think it is impossible to determine detailed practices that are supposed to work well for everybody.
Personally, I have an instinct of rebellion when somebody tells me something like “now close your eyes”, “now breath deeply”, “next week read this book”, “next month do 5 minutes a day of meditation”, “now let’s raise our arms”.
I think that, once we have made a good idea about the most general criterions, everybody, or every group, can decide, can build, their practices, exercises and even rituals.
In this context it wouldn’t be a problem to me if different groups that share this same spirituality have completely different practices and exercises.
.........
In this context, I feel like I have the plan how to build the house, I know how to make it; I just need time and energies to lay the bricks and turn the plan into a material, a real house.
........

I am into weight training.
In the past the approach was relying on the 'black box' method via learning through trial & error and from the accumulated experiences of those who were "successful".
The fact is humans has evolved from 3+ billion years to the present with hardwired constraints [cannot change within a lifetime] which must be complied to within its near approximates & acceptable limits.

It is because many do not understand the mechanisms of the hardwired constraints and limits that there is so much injuries and early deaths via weight training and body building.
At present, those involved in weight training are going into the 'black box' to understand the limits, sciences, bio-chemistry & psychological mechanisms to promote efficiencies and avoid injuries, related diseases and premature deaths.
As such, there are must and imperatives that cannot be compromised, e.g. do not hold your breath but breathe out upon any exertion, and many other 'musts'. Variations are allowed within the limits.

I believe the above is the same for 'spiritual' and mental self-development.
For example, there are common traits within all spirituality, e.g. breath control, maintain calmness meditation, reflect on mortality, etc. with provisions for variations within limits.
Some of these features and techniques [spiritual] had been established since thousands of years and are now verified by science, e.g.

• Dr. Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist who studies the relationship between brain function and various mental states. He is a pioneer in the neurological study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field known as “neurotheology.” His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes.
  https://www.andrewnewberg.com/

Then we have biofeedback [applicable to 'spirituality' and others] which is continually improving with advancing knowledge and technology;

• Biofeedback is the technique of gaining greater awareness of many physiological functions of one's own body by using electronic or other instruments, and with a goal of being able to manipulate the body's systems at will. Humans conduct biofeedback naturally all the time, at varied levels of consciousness and intentionality. Biofeedback and the biofeedback loop can also be thought of as self-regulation.[1][2] Some of the processes that can be controlled include brainwaves, muscle tone, skin conductance, heart rate and pain perception.[3]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofeedback

As such, we need an effective model [iterative loop] that generate continuous improvements in knowledge and self-developments.
Personally, I have adopted the Buddhist's 4NT-8FP model [diagnostic with principles for action and solution] while the various recipes I planned for executions is eclectic, i.e. picking the good things [ingredients] from whatever the sources that will contribute to one's optimal well being.

At present I am refreshing on Stoicism. All its fundamentals are covered within Buddhism-proper [no metaphysics and myths] but Stoicism has its interesting variations [thoughts and exercises] in tune with the Greek culture then, and its fundamentals are still useful to the modern era.

Generally I believe we still need at least a fundamental 'skeletal' model [re mental development for well being -'spiritual'] with its principles and practices which allows for variations in accordance to different & changing circumstances.

Merry Christmas.

[Angelo Cannata]

For example, there are common traits within all spirituality, e.g. breath control, maintain calmness meditation, reflect on mortality, etc. with provisions for variations within limits.
Some of these features and techniques [spiritual] had been established since thousands of years and are now verified by science, e.g.

This depends on the definition of spirituality. Unfortunately traditional ideas about spirituality are quite restrictive, limited. For example, we cannot exclude art from the things that are spirituality. You cannot tell a painter or a musician that they need to practice breath control to produce good art. This way we can realize that there is absolutely nothing that we can consider, a priori, common to all spiritualities. Even the idea of following a path, or even the idea of being honest, cannot be considered essential: it would be easy to object that you are trying to impose your idea of honesty or your idea of spirituality. Even Hitler's mentality, strictly speaking, can be considered just another spirituality. In this context, even spirituality itself, the same way as art, doesn't have to be considered something necessarily good.
At this point we might wonder: what is non-spirituality, since it looks like everything can be spirituality? My answer is that spirituality is what we, subjectively, consider "inner life". This way, I think that the definition "inner life" is helpful for several reasons:
- it reminds us that spirituality is subjective;
- it tells us that art, as well as any other subjective experience of something happening inside your feelings, can be considered spirituality; this way there is no exclusion for anybody, no racism, no marginalisation, no offense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For example, there are common traits within all spirituality, e.g. breath control, maintain calmness meditation, reflect on mortality, etc. with provisions for variations within limits.
Some of these features and techniques [spiritual] had been established since thousands of years and are now verified by science, e.g.

This depends on the definition of spirituality. Unfortunately traditional ideas about spirituality are quite restrictive, limited. For example, we cannot exclude art from the things that are spirituality.
You cannot tell a painter or a musician that they need to practice breath control to produce good art.
This way we can realize that there is absolutely nothing that we can consider, a priori, common to all spiritualities.
Even the idea of following a path, or even the idea of being honest, cannot be considered essential: it would be easy to object that you are trying to impose your idea of honesty or your idea of spirituality. Even Hitler's mentality, strictly speaking, can be considered just another spirituality. In this context, even spirituality itself, the same way as art, doesn't have to be considered something necessarily good.
At this point we might wonder: what is non-spirituality, since it looks like everything can be spirituality?
My answer is that spirituality is what we, subjectively, consider "inner life".
This way, I think that the definition "inner life" is helpful for several reasons:
- it reminds us that spirituality is subjective;
- it tells us that art, as well as any other subjective experience of something happening inside your feelings, can be considered spirituality; this way there is no exclusion for anybody, no racism, no marginalisation, no offense.

It seem you are equating 'spirituality' with Psychology, i.e. All [good and evil] even Hitler's mentality in this case is spirituality-psychology.
Psychology also encompass "inner life".

Psychology is the study of mind and behavior. [WIKI]
Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behavior. Psychologists are actively involved in studying and understanding mental processes, brain functions, and behavior.

As I had stated, I find the term 'spirituality' TOO loose.
As such, if we are to use the term 'spirituality' we need to establish some sort of consensus in agreeing to its definition while stating on the side what we disagree on the term.

Personally, I prefer to avoid the term 'spirituality' if I were to use the term "spirituality"
it relates to all mental behaviors, inner life, psychology, psychiatry in relation to the mental well-being of the individual.

I believe it would be more effective to be precise, e.g.
Science -Physics
Science - Chemistry
Science - Biology
Science - specific subsets of the sciences

Similarly when we discuss 'spirituality' it would be more effective to be precise, i.e.
Spirituality -Religion
Spirituality -Theism
Spirituality -Atheism
Spirituality -Well Being
Spirituality -Morality -Good and evil
Spirituality -Personal Development
Spirituality -Meaning of life
Spirituality -Inner Life [this is too broad]
Spirituality -Psychology
Spirituality -Psychiatry
Spirituality -Whatever ???

Your Spirituality -Inner Life is too broad and I am quite lost with it.
In trying to align with your term 'spirituality' I was using it in term of optimal well-being and personal development in the positive sense.

I believe 'breath control' is the most fundamental and essential feature to optimal activities in life that lead to well-being [spirituality].
Breath control enable calmness, equanimity, concentration, focus and mindfulness that will enhance whatever [every sphere of] human actions, which will include painters producing good paintings in general [Van Gogh as an exception?]

Controlled breathing can cause physiological changes that include:
lowered blood pressure and heart rate
reduced levels of stress hormones in the blood
reduced lactic acid build-up in muscle tissue
balanced levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood
improved immune system functioning
increased physical energy
increased feelings of calm and wellbeing.
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/hea ... uce-stress

As such, any 'spirituality' that do not have any breath control exercises do not have a secure grounding. Agree? Disagree?