Is spirituality minus the spirit still spiritual?

[UnseenParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

Unseen, Dya think most self-styled freethinkers have contemplated the implications of free will?

No. Like most people, including me when I’m not thinking hard, they settle for how they feel in the moment. If they feel free, no obvious compulsions, that’s free enough.

I’m a hardliner when it comes to free will, but I go through the day without reminding myself that when I choose Coke instead of Sprite, I couldn’t really choose the Sprite.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

I don’t think it’s what almost everybody who uses the term “spiritual” means by it.

What do almost everybody else mean by the term?

You’re giving the wrong interpretation to what I said. I’m not claiming that there is some meaning that everyone other than you subscribes to. Indeed, as has been pointed out by Reg and others, the term “spiritual” pretty much means nothing. It’s an expression masquerading as an assertion,

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

So, when people refer to spiritualism, they mean nothing?  Spirituality, I should say.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@davis – I doubt it.  Other attributes of their experience would come to the fore, in a sporting team.  On the other hand, if they were getting stoned, or otherwise thoughtful, on some occasions, they might think of it a bit that way.  Perhaps it depends on how much into their volleyball they were.

[DavisModerator]

So then your definition is deficient and needs some refining.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

It’s not a definition, it’s just some examples of things that are called “spiritual”.  Working in coordination with others towards a common goal can, in some circumstances, be a spiritual experience for people.

[DavisModerator]

So…you want to use “spiritual” without defining it?

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

To be clear here Simon, you are claiming that most people playing in a volleyball league would call their membership “spiritual”?

You’ve never heard of “team spirit,” Davis? Cheerleaders are very spiritual.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@davis – whatever definitions I could give, are never going to encompass all the things that people mean by the word.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

It’s important to me to differentiate intellectualizations vs feelings of spirituality. In the former, yeah, there’s a lot of bullshit and over-intellectualization about it. In fact writings and discourse about religion are largely bs and over-intellectualizations. Full of fluffy words and virtue signals, too.

But feelings are different. It’s obvious (to me) that most people have at times felt deeper connections to nature or other people, especially in groups, like in churches or concerts, even to the point of goosebumps, which is clearly a physiological response. It’s real in (most of) our minds, and sometimes visceral. Which leads me to believe there once was a survival benefit.

It’s easy, from an anti-woo perspective, to automatically discount “spirituality” in general, which is pretty much all I’m seeing here except from Simon. While to me, it seems a part of human nature to some degree, that could be “enlightening”. (That’s another word with potential baggage, but I mean enlightening in the sense of actually learning something interesting and informative about humans and how their brains work, even as just another physiological organ that supports the rest of our meat bodies.)

I feel the need to repeat. Yes, it’s the intellectualizations that can go overboard (e.g. as virtue signalling, or psuedo-philosophically), as it often does in a wide range of discussions and writings.

Is it surprising that so many people would conflate the two two meanings, and just get lazy in their language skills?

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

@simon – whatever definitions I could give, are never going to encompass all the things that people mean by the word.

And that is why I have said the word is meaningless. If it means something different to everyone then it describes nothing. It should be seen as an archaic term. Now I am off to partake in some vittles.

[_Robert_Participant]

@Pope – Conjuring up “spirits” does seem endemic to humanoids. Neanderthals appear to have believed in an afterlife based on burial sites. Imagination is a survival skill with side-effects.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

@Pope – Conjuring up “spirits” does seem endemic to humanoids. Neanderthals appear to have believed in an afterlife based on burial sites. Imagination is a survival skill with side-effects.

Evidence of belief in an afterlife? What evidence? Not asking to be snarky. Just curious.

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

@Pope – Conjuring up “spirits” does seem endemic to humanoids. Neanderthals appear to have believed in an afterlife based on burial sites. Imagination is a survival skill with side-effects.

Evidence of belief in an afterlife? What evidence? Not asking to be snarky. Just curious.

The evidence is scarce of course but some of their grave sites have what appear to be symbolic gestures such as being buried with animal horns and flowers (like us) and the bodies are often posed in certain ways. It may be similar to the ancient Egyptians in supplying their dead with artifacts for the afterlife, or it may just be secular decoration, but knowing how just about every Sapiens culture has “spiritual tendencies” I tend to think our close relatives probably did too.

https://gizmodo.com/neanderthals-might-have-believed-in-the-spiritual-world-5794078

That means there’s a real chance that, if the positioning of these Neanderthal remains really do indicate some larger spiritual significance, it wasn’t humans that first believed in an afterlife, but rather our extinct cousins. Either way, it’s just another indication that it’s unwise to underestimate a Neanderthal’s intelligence.

[DavisModerator]

@davis – whatever definitions I could give, are never going to encompass all the things that people mean by the word.

Simon, unless you are dealing wit poetry…why would you use a term that is this elusive? How can you achieve much (if anything) if people are talking about something different (or at least vaguely overlapping) when you can use some other term?

[Author]

Posts