Is spirituality minus the spirit still spiritual?

[rhonjonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:

rhonjon wrote:

But if I love a person, I want them to be happy even if I’m not the one who is making them happy.

That sounds like a good definition.

Here’s how I put it: True love (which one gets only from parents or true friends) is “wanting what’s best for the other person even if it’s not what you would want for oneself.” So, a parent or a good friend can urge the one they love to leave (as for a job) even though it will mean losing their presence one-on-one.

 

“… not what one would want for oneself.”

 

This resolves the problem of applying the Golden Rule to masochists. And it places your dominatrix in good moral standing.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

rhonjon wrote:

“… not what one would want for oneself.”

This resolves the problem of applying the Golden Rule to masochists. And it places your dominatrix in good moral standing.

That’s true.  I think people take one particular definition of the Golden Rule too literally: to treat others as you would treat yourself.  People take it to mean, what is good for me must be good for you, literally.  But a wider reading of it is to say, what is good for me is what I want – to fulfill my needs.  So what is good for you must be what you want – to fulfill your needs.  This is expressed by, love your neighbour as yourself.  It requires cognitive empathy to figure out the needs or vulnerability of the other person.

[—Participant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Love and patriotism can be explained behaviourally even if one doesn’t feel those particular emotions.

How would you define “love”?

Love is a set of emotions and ideals concerning interpersonal relationships. It describes the highest degree of affinity or emotional attachment an animal can have for another (though love, itself can vary in intensity). Love is likely an adaptation helping to cement bonds between different individuals. For instance, love can deepen parental bonds strengthening the desire to nurture and protect one’s progeny. Love can have a sexual component helping to reinforce pair-bonding especially for mating purposes. Love can exist between friends or be expressed toward a group of people helping to create stronger social bonds and support networks. Some facets of love are biologically reinforced such as being in the presence of a loved one can lead to increases of oxytocin—a hormone people find pleasurable—in the brain.

[UnseenParticipant]

To love someone is not to want them to be happy. What might make them happy could be, to quote Conan The Barbarian, “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women” or S.J. Perelman, “Give me an underground laboratory, half a dozen atom-smashers, and a girl in a diaphanous veil waiting to be turned into a chimpanzee, and I care not who writes the nation’s laws.”

Like I said, one gets true love only from (good) parents and good friends, who want all good to come your way.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

To love someone is not to want them to be happy. What might make them happy could be, to quote Conan The Barbarian, “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women”

The West wants Russia to be happy, at least in the sense of being well functioning and well adjusted.  As things stand, the country’s imploded and it’s sick as a dog, the people are turning on each other, etc., and Russia blames everyone else.  The reason we want them to be happy is that they’re a fellow country and we need them to be happy.  Somebody who is gratuitously throwing themselves away on the battlefield, because they’ve got nothing left to live for, is not happy.  Someone who gets their thrills from rape and murder is not well adjusted.

So, the West, and the rest of the world, needs Russia to be happy and peaceful.  That’s why President Macron was right when he said we needed to defeat them but not crush them.

 

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

The West wants Russia to be happy, at least in the sense of being well functioning and well adjusted.  As things stand, the country’s imploded and it’s sick as a dog, the people are turning on each other, etc., and Russia blames everyone else.

Gee, Simon. That sounds like a country I’m a bit more familiar with.

[rhonjonParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

To love someone is not to want them to be happy. What might make them happy could be, to quote Conan The Barbarian, “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women”

The West wants Russia to be happy, at least in the sense of being well functioning and well adjusted. As things stand, the country’s imploded and it’s sick as a dog, the people are turning on each other, etc., and Russia blames everyone else. The reason we want them to be happy is that they’re a fellow country and we need them to be happy. Somebody who is gratuitously throwing themselves away on the battlefield, because they’ve got nothing left to live for, is not happy. Someone who gets their thrills from rape and murder is not well adjusted. So, the West, and the rest of the world, needs Russia to be happy and peaceful. That’s why President Macron was right when he said we needed to defeat them but not crush them.

 

If what makes a person happy is harmful, then I probably wouldn’t love them. In fact, I might stay as  far away from them as possible. If what makes them happy is not harmful but aggravating, I might still love them from the end of a long handled spoon.

 

What we feel for Russia is not love but a calculated understanding that we would benefit from a healthy Russian society. Or if not benefit directly, then at least not fear nuclear attack.

[rhonjonParticipant]

At this point, it won’t get us anywhere to continue  analyzing the merits (or lack thereof) of the word spiritual.

 

I think what this thread is trying to determine is whether we can reap the benefits of spirituality (peace, love, happiness, social harmony, a sense of awe) without having to resort to religious delusion, supernaturalism, mysticism.

 

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

rhonjon wrote:

What we feel for Russia is not love but a calculated understanding that we would benefit from a healthy Russian society. Or if not benefit directly, then at least not fear nuclear attack.

I think in general we need to have compassion for our enemies, or we’re all lost.

If we want Russia to be doing well, what’s the practical difference between that and love?  I know that countries are different from people in this regard.  The “interdependence hypothesis” states that this is how kindness and helping between non-family members evolved: because people needed each other to survive.  In the beginning, it was all instrumental and calculating, and this has been encoded in the human species as compassionate feelings towards general others.

We are good to those who have value for us.  Is that calculating, or heartfelt?  A bit of both.  The corollory is that we need to make ourselves valuable to others.  That’s a good thing.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

rhonjon wrote:

I think what this thread is trying to determine is whether we can reap the benefits of spirituality (peace, love, happiness, social harmony, a sense of awe) without having to resort to religious delusion, supernaturalism, mysticism.

This article says that happiness comes from a good environment.  This is like a flower in the garden that grows strong because it has the right soil, fertiliser, sunshine, rain etc.

[rhonjonParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

rhonjon wrote:

What we feel for Russia is not love but a calculated understanding that we would benefit from a healthy Russian society. Or if not benefit directly, then at least not fear nuclear attack.

I think in general we need to have compassion for our enemies, or we’re all lost. If we want Russia to be doing well, what’s the practical difference between that and love? I know that countries are different from people in this regard. The “interdependence hypothesis” states that this is how kindness and helping between non-family members evolved: because people needed each other to survive. In the beginning, it was all instrumental and calculating, and this has been encoded in the human species as compassionate feelings towards general others. We are good to those who have value for us. Is that calculating, or heartfelt? A bit of both. The corollory is that we need to make ourselves valuable to others. That’s a good thing.

 

 

 

By calculating, I mean that it is a decision that we make. It’s still real—even more real than emotional love. Yes, we should have compassion for Russian people. We have to remember that a lot of what we think about them is based on propaganda and our own military’s need to see them as the bad guy. It’s not about unilateral disarmament or whether we think Russia should leave the Ukraine alone. It’s about having compassion for people who have very little to do with any of that. That’s the only way to break down the barriers of fear and defensiveness.

[jakelafortParticipant]

I think what this thread is trying to determine is whether we can reap the benefits of spirituality (peace, love, happiness, social harmony, a sense of awe) without having to resort to religious delusion, supernaturalism, mysticism.

Reminds me of can we be good without god. How the theists have controlled the narrative and had so many atheists ask whether they can be good citizens is a question not too unlike how long have you been beating your wife. No? Well it is making an unfounded assumption so in that sense it is. Stop slapping yourself Jake.

If you are deeply religious and pious and observant the legit question is can you be a good human. There is nothing intrinsically off about a person who disbelieves infantile superstitions. On the other hand there is a boat load of immoral bs required of the observant. So it is up to them to reject religion and be decent humans.

I still don’t think spirituality is a valid concept without giving each author’s definition. But if it is about how we FEEL and it is some sort of elevated or enlightened mental state that leads to peace, love, social harmony, a sense of awe then arguably it is more authentic to seek such spirituality without any religious baggage. Coming to the dance with crosses and crescents, prayer blankets, and assorted trappings of collective ignorance may color the experience in a way that inhibits self-actualization or whatever experience is sought that leads to those aforementioned 4 benefits. The unindoctrinated on the other hand can approach the experience without preconceptions. Somehow i am thinking of tripping on drugs like ayahuasca and wondering whether theists tripping involves religious hallucinations and delusions. Back to the form…

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

[rhonjonParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

I think what this thread is trying to determine is whether we can reap the benefits of spirituality (peace, love, happiness, social harmony, a sense of awe) without having to resort to religious delusion, supernaturalism, mysticism. Reminds me of can we be good without god. How the theists have controlled the narrative and had so many atheists ask whether they can be good citizens is a question not too unlike how long have you been beating your wife. No? Well it is making an unfounded assumption so in that sense it is. Stop slapping yourself Jake. If you are deeply religious and pious and observant the legit question is can you be a good human. There is nothing intrinsically off about a person who disbelieves infantile superstitions. On the other hand there is a boat load of immoral bs required of the observant. So it is up to them to reject religion and be decent humans. I still don’t think spirituality is a valid concept without giving each author’s definition. But if it is about how we FEEL and it is some sort of elevated or enlightened mental state that leads to peace, love, social harmony, a sense of awe then arguably it is more authentic to seek such spirituality without any religious baggage. Coming to the dance with crosses and crescents, prayer blankets, and assorted trappings of collective ignorance may color the experience in a way that inhibits self-actualization or whatever experience is sought that leads to those aforementioned 4 benefits. The unindoctrinated on the other hand can approach the experience without preconceptions. Somehow i am thinking of tripping on drugs like ayahuasca and wondering whether theists tripping involves religious hallucinations and delusions. Back to the form…

 

Atheist do experience happiness, peace, love, etc. while many theists are chronically depressed, addicted to drugs or sex, and/or plain old evil. It’s like asking if 2 + 2 equals 4 just because there are a large number of otherwise intelligent people who insist that it equals 5.

[_Robert_Participant]

The problem is that most of the world’s cultures are so preloaded with the artifacts of religion. It invades our languages, our traditions, our institutions, our relationships, hierarchies and gatherings, our expectations and our history. There is no pure control group; we have no idea what a non-fantasy-inclined secular human species would even be like.

[Author]

Posts