What it means to be a spiritual person?

luecy7 said:
Made, and apparently dismissed?

From my viewpoint you described physical, materialistic qualities that you see in the universe and applied them towards 'spirit' as a 'spiritual journey'. For comparison I'd look for how they are applied towards the more tangible relationships within this universe. China_Cat_Sunflower addressed anthropomorphism and providence from his viewpoint, challenging the truth of a greater or a supernatural spirit. Rather than looking for what can animate anywhere in the entire universe, I would focus on what animates people within your own relationships, the very people from which you might apply meaning to a word like 'anthropomorphism' or 'providence'.

Substituting into your statement: 'the (relationship) is exactly what it is, and when we (at least two people), begin a spiritual journey (together I should hope), there is always something to get and something to leave behind.' Yes, you might receive from someone else, but then you might not. Giving is a matter of giving without necessarily receiving. The exact opposite of your statement. Are you able to give without receiving? If you view a relationship from a materialistic opportunity cost, then I submit you are focused on a physical quality. You are stating the ole: You can't be two places at once, you can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't have your freedom and live, you can't be married and free, etc... Those are just physical constraints. If you view a person and your relationship with them as a purely physical object, then your statement might be true. I wouldn't call it a spiritual journey. Polar opposite.

Again, substituting: 'perhaps spirituality then if done correctly should bring us back to the place (we) started from.' Applied to a relationship, done correctly, should it revert back to what it was before it began? Divorce is the correct path after a marriage? Once a sinner, always a sinner, unless you can beat it out of someone? The real question here from my perspective is whether or not people can potentially change. Change implies ending up in a place that you did NOT start from, again the exact opposite of your statement. Is a person trapped with a nature, or presumed to have an ability to NOT be natural, thus super-natural, with that ability to change. For example in the fable, The Scorpion and the Frog , could the scorpion change? If you view that people can change only momentarily, trapped with a nature, then I'd say your viewpoint of people and resulting relationships are entirely physical and non-spiritual. Physically it is dust to dust, but hopefully you can admit that a person passing on is not in the same condition they were being born? Neither is a relationship.

So then rather than question whether there is an encompassing non-natural entity in the universe, the home that we each live in, lets look closer to whether there are merely physical, materialistic relationships within our own homes. Yes of course there is always a physical relationship with the denoted physical qualities, but is there not potentially one with the polar opposite quality too? Every home here is within this universe, so if there is a spiritual aspect of a relationship somewhere in our own home then there is at least one in this universe.
Click to expand...
Can you really separate the path from the result?
 
Saltmeister said:
Perhaps the question of what is spiritual has to do with how we see "vitality" and "liveliness" in a system and how our journey fits into that vitality and liveliness in the system.

Biological life is organic and perhaps the idea of being spiritual has to do with a belief in a distinct and separate reality that is also "organic" but that which is invisible. This invisible but organic system is something you can sense but which you cannot see.

An organic system follows non-linear laws and relationships. What sustains the vitality and liveliness of the system is a flow of energy that must fit inside finite but dynamic and variable thresholds. As long as the energy levels stay within these dynamic and variable thresholds, the system can sustain itself without much external intervention. The person who maintains this system simply has to monitor its vital signs and feed it with the right nutrients.

To be spiritual, you try to connect with this invisible but accessible system that you cannot see, using your intuition to guide your interaction with this invisible but accessible, non-linear and organic system.

You can't see it, but you know it's there. The spiritual is accessible, but not visible. That is what spirituality is about. But if this "organic system" existed, surely it must be possible to make it visible?

This is where we discover the irony of "spirituality." The organic system that I would like to call "spirituality" isn't "real" in the sense that it isn't a "physical" system that you can locate, measure or reveal. Actually, it's artificial. It doesn't really exist except in your mind.

However, having said that it isn't "real" in the sense of not being a "physical" system, that it doesn't exist except in your mind, it doesn't mean it isn't "real" in another sense. It's "real" not in the sense of being physical, but "real" in the sense of affecting your journey through life.

The more people this "reality" affects, the more powerful it is. It is real, but not in a physical sense. It isn't enough for one person to interact with this imaginary system. The more people there are interacting with this imaginary organic system, the more powerful it is. What makes it even more powerful is when they agree on what is happening inside this imaginary organic system. Disagreement weakens the "reality" of this spiritual phenomenon. Consensus strengthens and reinforces it.

But spirituality is more than just making something up. You have to believe that the system exists in its own right.
Click to expand...

I dunno, sometimes it seems like I'm the rod and it's the wool. I can't help rubbing on it as I go around, and then I feel tingly like the static electricity being generated is spiritual, somehow. And I wonder what it is that's doing it, but maybe it's just me rubbing.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Well, if an apple were an orange, a lemon would be a Volkswagen. I once had a Volkswagen that was a lemon, so that proves my point.
Click to expand...
I do not have the notion that words can prove anything. If I describe to you what it is like to plant a seed, watch it grow, and give the fruit to someone, or to design, build, repair, or drive a vehicle... it is just a description from my experience. I presume you would have to do the same or similar in order to relate. There is no information I can provide to reproduce an interactive experience for someone else.

The apple, orange, lemon, and Volkswagen are physical objects, correct? Yes, those are nouns. I intentionally shifted the focus to the verb, specifically the interaction between people.

Maybe you can scan my words for the IF/THEN statements to see if I errantly tried to mislead with some logic. In the last sentence I was just saying that whatever we do here, we are doing in this universe.

China Cat Sunflower said:
It's one thing to extrapolate and extend human experience to the rest of the universe, and quite another to reflect that construct back as self-created.
Click to expand...
I hope I did not extrapolate and extend human experience to the rest of the universe. If you are talking about some other posts here, maybe like the OP, I agree. I did not intend any extrapolation towards the words you were contemplating, like 'anthropomorphism' or 'providence'. My focus was on the word and character of 'spirituality', with examples closer to our respective homes.

I may not fully understand what you mean by the phrase, "reflect that construct back as self-created" (human experience?), but I submit that a relationship is not solely self-created.
 
luecy7 said:
Maybe you can scan my words for the IF/THEN statements to see if I errantly tried to mislead with some logic. In the last sentence I was just saying that whatever we do here, we are doing in this universe.

.
Click to expand...

What you do is take what others write, mash it into the blender of your own loosely related analogy, hit frappe, and then serve it up as some sort of abstruse critique of the original thought. I've watched you do this consistently since your arrival. Why don't you just put out your own thoughts in a free standing form instead of making hash of what others write?

Chris
 
seattlegal said:
I was referring to the relationship between the physical and the spiritual.
Click to expand...
I was too. If it takes one to toy, but two to tao, which would be an example of being spiritual? Both? Neither? Taking a physical path brings knowledge of a physical path.
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
What you do is take what others write, mash it into the blender of your own loosely related analogy, hit frappe, and then serve it up as some sort of abstruse critique of the original thought. I've watched you do this consistently since your arrival. Why don't you just put out your own thoughts in a free standing form instead of making hash of what others write?

Chris
Click to expand...
I'm just not penguin.
 
luecy7 said:
I was too. If it takes one to toy, but two to tao, which would be an example of being spiritual? Both? Neither? Taking a physical path brings knowledge of a physical path.
Click to expand...
Ahh, but the tao permeates heaven, earth, and man:
seattlegal said:
Yes. We participate in changes. From the Taoist perspective: in this quote from the "Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate,"
Zhou Dunyi is referencing one of the "Ten Wings," or commentary from the I Ching, the Book of Changes:

"Therefore it is said, 'In representing the Dao of Heaven, one uses the terms Yin and Yang, and in representing the Dao of Earth, one uses the terms Soft and Hard, while in representing the Dao of Man, one uses the terms Love and Righteousness.'"
--Zhou Dunyi
​
We are part of the universe, and we also can participate in the change or transformation of it. It starts with cultivating Love and Righteousness within ourselves, and interacting with the universe through these means.
Click to expand...
If you don't think you can't learn anything spiritual by taking a physical path, I would refer you to Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
​
 
seattlegal said:
Ahh, but the tao permeates heaven, earth, and man:

If you don't think you can't learn anything spiritual by taking a physical path, I would refer you to Romans 1
Click to expand...
I will physically adapt the physical statement for you: I can physically see the physical difference in the physical result of taking a physical path by oneself, versus the physical result of taking a physical path together. One is a physics experiment, like playing with a toy, or testing a path. The other?
 
luecy7 said:
I will physically adapt the physical statement for you: I can physically see the physical difference in the physical result of taking a physical path by oneself, versus the physical result of taking a physical path together. One is a physics experiment, like playing with a toy, or testing a path. The other?
Click to expand...
The other could be idolatry if if you treat the other person like an object or an experiment. Are you claiming that is spiritual?
 
seattlegal said:
The other could be idolatry if if you treat the other person like an object or an experiment. Are you claiming that is spiritual?
Click to expand...
If a person can behave like a mere object, and is treated like an object, would that be an example of taking a path together? No. Do you disagree?

A result might be uncertain the first time in a physics experiment, but both the path and the result are a bit uncertain when taking a path together. A relationshp is jointly an experiment, with uncertainty. Is it not?
 
luecy7 said:
If a person can behave like a mere object, and is treated like an object, would that be an example of taking a path together? No. Do you disagree?

A result might be uncertain the first time in a physics experiment, but both the path and the result are a bit uncertain when taking a path together. A relationshp is jointly an experiment, with uncertainty. Is it not?
Click to expand...

Hmm...ok. What says you regarding the other extreme--no separation between subject and object/no-self?
 
seattlegal said:
Hmm...ok. What says you regarding the other extreme--no separation between subject and object/no-self?
Click to expand...
An autopilot is fine until there is a new, unexpected, or unknown situation. Two adaptive autopilots taking a path together is a disaster. Whether one autopilot already knows the path or not is irrelevant because if one autopilot can be adaptive and experiment to learn, then another autopilot can never know and control the adaptive autopilot. Imagine a vehicle with two autopilot GPS units that can each selectively take control of the vehicle by fighting or working together, but that have different destinations, knowledge, or desired paths in mind. Potentially one of the autopilots can place the vehicle on an unexpected or unknown path which is foreign to both of the autopilots. Two adaptive autopilots would spend forever trying to figure each other out, never succeeding, and never able to control the vehicle.

The relationship between an autopilot and the physics is different than the relationship between two autopilots. As an autopilot says that in the journey there is always something to get and something to leave behind, it is a true statement from the physics of the path, but what about the nature of working with another adaptive autopilot? As an autopilot says that when done correctly it always returns to the place it started from, it is a true statement perhaps for its desire to control and return home, rather than to accept a ride with an autopilot with a different sense of where home is.

So if I were to throw God, the soul, and even the concept of self out of the vehicle as misguided and errant concepts, there is still a difference between a physical object and an autopilot, and the world is littered with other autopilots. People can drive their vehicles as if they were mere autopilots, but as two autopilots take a path together the result is different than if the one autopilot simply takes a path alone.
 
seattlegal said:
Oh, you mean like the two hemispheres of our brains?
Click to expand...
There are only two?

No. Two autopilots trying to work together will end up in a disaster. So what would happen if you drive the left front and the right rear tires of a vehicle, and I drive other two? What would happen if I drive one of your hemispheres, and you drive one of my hemispheres?
 
luecy7 said:
There are only two?

No. Two autopilots trying to work together will end up in a disaster. So what would happen if you drive the left front and the right rear tires of a vehicle, and I drive other two? What would happen if I drive one of your hemispheres, and you drive one of my hemispheres?
Click to expand...

Heh! Would spin around in circles!
 
seattlegal said:
Heh! Would spin around in circles!
Click to expand...
Only if we agreed to. If the autopilots do not coordinate then there would be friction. If the tires disagree then they will be melted all over the road.

I submit you have it backwards: an autopilot that drives only by itself is the one that drives in circles, always returning back to a familiar place. In the USA they are often counter-clockwise circles. In the UK they are often clockwise circles. Two autopilots trying to drive together don't really know where they are going because neither one really has full control.
 
luecy7 said:
Only if we agreed to. If the autopilots do not coordinate then there would be friction. As the tires disagree then they will be melted all over the road.

I submit you have it backwards: an autopilot that drives only by themselves is the one that drives in circles, always returning back to the familiar place. In the USA they are often counter-clockwise circles. In the UK they are often clockwise circles. Two autopilots don't really know where they are going because neither one really has full control.
Click to expand...

I wrote "spin," not "drive." ;)
 
seattlegal said:
I wrote "spin," not "drive." ;)
Click to expand...
Only if we agreed to, or we disagree but one of us submits, over-powers, or fools the other. One of us may wish to brake, or spin the other direction. An object can spin but it has to be driven to spin, and it has to be driven to stop spinning. The rotational inertia is similar to forward inertia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top