Originally posted by LemonJelloBwahaha. I have never laughed so much in my entire life.
Reading back through this thread, a point that struck me forcefully was one you raised. You presented a particularly outstanding analogical image of a prism. Your point, as I understand it, is that just as a prism might take a ray of white light and refract into a multitude of different colors and angles, our spiritual functioning acts similarly: it tak ...[text shortened]... help make sense of the evolution of quasi-explicit paths that do form, as spiritual traditions.
Oh, wait, there was that time my friend drank some milk and started laughing. The milk shot out her nose and sprayed everyone in front of her. THAT was the time I laughed more than this.
Originally posted by SuzianneWould you like some cheese with your whine?
Bwahaha. I have never laughed so much in my entire life.
Oh, wait, there was that time my friend drank some milk and started laughing. The milk shot out her nose and sprayed everyone in front of her. THAT was the time I laughed more than this.
Your behavior in this thread has been like a spoiled, whiny brat who isn’t getting her way. I realize you find it offensive that someone like FMF or myself would presume to characterize the term ‘spirituality’ in a way that encompasses the activity of those who … gasp … think differently from you on some theological matters. The horror of it. I would think if anything counts as offensive, though, it would be your provincial prejudices in this matter and the way in which you presume to label that which originates with humans as “banal”.
If you really want the term ‘spirituality’ to remain unsullied by all of us heathens you deem unworthy of the term, then okay. I don't think that would change a substantive point here, which is one that FMF put well with his prism analog. The point is that there is something unifying and sufficiently profound about the human condition, but one that gives rise to a diverse array of human activities that in turn provide a lot of the meaningful content we ascribe to our collective and individual lives. You may have to grapple with the possibility that yours is just one of the many beams exiting the prism, princess. I would think it would take a bloated understanding of one’s significance to think only your particular beam is worthy of the term ‘spirituality’ while the others are just “banal”.
Originally posted by LemonJelloClear light spills through a prism
Reading back through this thread, a point that struck me forcefully was one you raised. You presented a particularly outstanding analogical image of a prism. Your point, as I understand it, is that just as a prism might take a ray of white light and refract into a multitude of different colors and angles, our spiritual functioning acts similarly: it tak ...[text shortened]... help make sense of the evolution of quasi-explicit paths that do form, as spiritual traditions.
to display an array of hues—
Then people go to war
over which is the only true color…
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/god.146154/page-6
Originally posted by LemonJelloStop, you're killing me...
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
Your behavior in this thread has been like a spoiled, whiny brat who isn’t getting her way. I realize you find it offensive that someone like FMF or myself would presume to characterize the term ‘spirituality’ in a way that encompasses the activity of those who … gasp … think differently from you on some ...[text shortened]... nly your particular beam is worthy of the term ‘spirituality’ while the others are just “banal”.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtvoluntary actions that benefit a community or society as a whole. A spiritual practice like Zen meditation may appear on the surface to benefit only the practitioner, but if it makes them a better citizen then it is pro-social. I hope this clarifies my statement.
What do you mean by "pro-social"?
Originally posted by DowardI would say that someone's voluntary actions that benefit a community or society as a whole would almost certainly stem from their spirituality (as I have defined it) and serve as examples of how spirituality may manifest itself, but I don't see such voluntary actions as being a definition of 'spirituality' ~ as in "Spirituality is a pro-social action", like you stated on page 5.
voluntary actions that benefit a community or society as a whole. A spiritual practice like Zen meditation may appear on the surface to benefit only the practitioner, but if it makes them a better citizen then it is pro-social. I hope this clarifies my statement.
Originally posted by DowardSo by pro-social you mean "for the benefit of the community", while I agree that such action may be a sign of a person's healthy spirituality, it's not obviously a cause.
voluntary actions that benefit a community or society as a whole. A spiritual practice like Zen meditation may appear on the surface to benefit only the practitioner, but if it makes them a better citizen then it is pro-social. I hope this clarifies my statement.
It's pointing back to the exchange between FMF and myself. I talked about the question "Who am I?" and FMF (I'm paraphrasing) wanted to change that into "Who are we?". I think what this is leading to is that part of spirituality is having space for other people, but by defining oneself better.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneI am not afraid. And have indeed answered that question many times before.
Why are you afraid to answer the question?
Which is why you know the answer.
I thus find it much more interesting to ask why you repeatedly ask me the same question
when you already know the answer, than to simply repost what you evidently ignored the
previous times.
Here is a question for you.
Why should I bother answering questions from a person who demonstrates that they don't
listen to the answer?
Originally posted by SuzianneYou are very disappointing in your attitude as a Christian. Please have some respect for the expressions of deep thinking from a fellow brother. You should be ashamed of yourself. 😞
Bwahaha. I have never laughed so much in my entire life.
Oh, wait, there was that time my friend drank some milk and started laughing. The milk shot out her nose and sprayed everyone in front of her. THAT was the time I laughed more than this.
Originally posted by SuzianneThe question is not what it is not, but what is it? Do you have an answer?
Spirituality is not banal, it is not mundane.
If spirituality originates with man, then it is banal, it is mundane -- but it is not these things. Man cannot be spiritual on his own, without connection to higher power. Spirituality does not originate with man. It originates, it begins, with Spirit.
You cannot reject spirituality and still [i] ...[text shortened]... banal or mundane "human" spirit. Spirituality neither begins nor ends with the "human" spirit.
LemonJello: “For instance, there is an idea that whereas it is a primary goal of philosophizing to understand the nature of reality, it is a primary goal of spiritualizing to understand one's place within the nature of reality. Or, said differently, whereas philosophy aims at understanding the way things are, spirituality aims at understanding one's relation to the way things are. Relatedly – something at which moonbus already hinted on page 1 – some would tend to think that spirituality picks up at some locations where philosophy drops off. Consider the notion of "personal meaning", which many would agree is a topic with spiritual dimensions. I would tend to argue that it involves a process whereby one weaves together more atomistic facts of the world (as they are taken or imagined) until a broader picture emerges. It typifies spirituality in that it is an interpretive process aimed at a higher-order understanding of how more basic things interrelate. In this analogy, perhaps philosophy and science are more aimed at understanding the nature of the fibers; whereas spirituality is more aimed at interpretation of emergent patterns.
For many, the distinction between philosophy and spirituality becomes most muddled in the realms of, say, ethics. But consider for example, the distinction between an "ethical theory" and an "ethical teaching". Which is more philosophical, which more spiritual? There must be some aspect of the distinction here where spiritual activity is more aimed at integration into one’s own use and practice for some larger purpose, in alignment with one's broader interpretive bearing. This is also why philosophy could at least be conceived as a cold, cerebral enterprise; whereas spirituality not so much. This is also why many would say philosophy could be motivated by more objective, dispassionate concerns; whereas spirituality only by concerns deeply held (that is why I have heard it said that curiosity begets philosophy, while suffering begets spirituality). I would guess that existential confusion begets spirituality, as well. “
How about this as a working disambiguation: spirituality is the attempt actually to live life informed by some principle other than sheer egotism; philosophy is the attempt to formulate such a principle in the abstract; religion (when it is doing what it ought to be doing) is the attempt to propagate such a principle and support like-minded people who are trying to implement it in their lives; psychiatry (when it is doing what it ought to be doing) attempts to get people back on track when any of the above goes badly wrong in an individual case; a true friend is one who notices when you are on track and smiles quietly.