I was trying to say I think we enjoy exactly the same feelings, no surprise there as we are both, despite allegations to the contrary against me, normal humans with a normal range of human feelings. We just attach different inspirations to them.
Gotcha. I think we've come to that conclusion before.
I'll leave that for Penelope. Its certainly not what I took from it. Emotions have their complex roots in every branch of this Freudian trinity and are a primary cause of people to choose belief systems and indulge in the rituals the OP discussed. Maybe I misunderstood Penelope.
Or maybe I did. Perhaps she'll chime in at some point and clarify. As for emotions and where they come from, I don't think Freud is as good a model as more recent cognitive scientists and psychologists. Then again, I tend toward neuroscience and cognitive science rather than the kind of speculations Freud made.
imagine what it would be like if I started debating full on with myself!
You sure you don't want to try being a split personality?
Its not! I have my own rituals, they are just not centred round a belief system, nor have superstitious attachments.
Just curious- what rituals do you have? What social statements do they make and why do you do them? I know some agnostic and atheist Druids who do ritual for various reasons, but it always fascinates me why people do ritual and how they create them if they aren't inheriting the from a particular system.
My comments about your definition of ritual was not meant to be pedantic, but rather to clarify your position. You, yourself, have had problems when other people redefine words that carry a certain meaning for say, science. I am saying ritual is one of these terms that has a usual meaning, and it is not the same thing as what you spoke of, which is why I originally was confused and thought you disliked rituals.
As for beliefs and superstitions... superstitions, like idolatry, is largely in the eye of the beholder. Of course, it is possible to do ritual without a belief
system, as it is also possible to create both belief system and ritual on one's own. That's my preference. I like the creativity of generating ideas about reality and expressing this (as well as eliciting the experience) in ritual.
Ego is "I" or "Self". It is mind, both consciously and unconsciously schooled to wherever it finds itself.
So when you observe your own thoughts and feelings, the you that is thinking/feeling and the you that is observing are both "ego" in your model, yes? There is no distinction between the two, or perhaps just not distinct words for these two types of self?
What I mean by self indulgence is that in order to give merit to the power of prayer or meditation your ego has to give the system itself merit, its a feedback loop of sorts in that too. To give it merit you are drawing on ego that you have the faculties to make such an informed decision. As soon as you blur the line from possibility to belief I think it is entirely ego steering the ship.
Who is steering the ship before the line goes from possibility to belief? And is practice (prayer and meditation are practices, not beliefs) necessarily a movement from potential to belief- that is, from many possibilities to only one? Or is it possible to practice (to choose an action) with the intent of being open to experiencing the result? It seems like you wrap belief and practice tightly together, but this is not the only way it might work for people.
You can throw in as many 'mights' as you like but ignorance is no substitute for knowledge.
So those who are lacking the intelligence or capacity to gain knowledge cannot be enlightened in any way? I have an uncle who is severely mentally handicapped. Yet he exhibits many moral, loving behaviors. Meanwhile, other people may have a great deal of knowledge, but be unenlightened in the sense that they are cruel, for example. I think it is problematic to attach knowledge to enlightenment (in its spiritual sense), since that would mean that some people cannot hope for enlightenment by virtue of their limited intellectual capacities or education.
There are so many pieces that are observable using the scientific method that I simply have no time for inventing nor wasting time thinking about virtual pieces. And by virtual pieces I mean everything that is beyond science to study for answers.
Glad that works for you. I'm too much a poetic, artsy sort for that kind of limitation. I am interested in the limits of my own ideas more than the limits of science. I am interested in possibility.
And when bodies of people or individuals try to tell me that their virtual puzzle is complete and is the whole truth then I say.... well you know what I say. You do draw value and meaning from areas I would call virtual which in your case is entirely harmless. But it is not always so harmless, which is why I put effort not into discrediting the concept of personal spirituality, which is like an appreciation of art, but the promoting the truth they are still just virtual pieces.
I think I say about the same thing, including about science. Again, anyone who claims to really know... not just the whole truth, but any substantial portion... incites skepticism in me. That, and wariness. Because the surity of so many people of their various different worldviews seems to lead to conflict and an arrogance that limits people's capacity for real learning and transformation. I am more interested in art- including living as an art- than assembling facts that I might call truth. My views on truth is that it is something far more transformational and similar to that art, than a collection of verifiable facts. Facts just aren't that interesting... it's the processes and how it affects me and my earth that I find fascinating and deeply moving. My experience of both science and mysticism is that those processes, while related to facts and obervations, spring from my imagination and capacity for seeing potential. The two, then, are different more in focus for me (or you might say application), than in fundamental attributes.
And despite the best efforts of some western governments to dumb kids down again I think there is a new generation on the way that will change everything.
I'm not seeing it yet. But one can only hope.
As for my own views... I will say that I don't think the WWW is the first or only way human thought and knowledge has been recorded in a way accessible to people across time/space. But it's the first way that this has happened in which people without any natural skill or training finds the body of knowledge easily accessible. Unfortunately, it goes along with a huge amount of BS and many people can find but not accurately assess the information.
/ˈrɪtʃ
Show Spelled Pronunciation [rich-oo-uh
