Sorry, but this just doesn’t fly. It might make sense it this were private correspondence between the two of us and you decided it would be a waste of your time to impart valuable information to me…but here you are also speaking to the rest of the people on this message board, and surely there must be some of them worthy of the information I have requested of you?
What I have to say is that I’m not a scientist, and there is a lot of very smart thinking going on here. I like learning from people who are smarter than I am. I also have to say that I am perfectly well aware of Plato’s Cave; I just wanted to ask my own question. And I also want to say that Stoneburg’s assertion that almost any mention of spirituality/consciousness investigation on this board is almost universally dismissed out-of-hand as simple, unambiguous woo seems to me to have merit. “Spirituality” (and I do mean spirituality; I carry no water for traditional mythic religion) may in fact be simple ignorance, which Dopers rightly fight. But it might not be as well, right? Or is there a “Closed” sign on the door? The list of people mentioned as consciousness/spirituality investigators over the last couple thousand years has some impressive names on it. Would you say that Gandhi was full of shit? How about the Dalai Lama - just another ignorant fuckhead who couldn’t think his way out of a wet paper bag?
Just asking.
If someone is unaware of the very existence of psychology, or completely ignorant about the wisdom traditions of the east, then no, I don’t think there is any point in trying to educate them. You need to have a certain base knowledge on a subject in order to discuss it intelligently.
No, it seems you aren’t “just asking”, since no one has gone near saying anything like that in this thread. Would you care to discuss anything specific that has actually been said by posters?
If perception of the spiritual is an evolutionary response, somebody please explain to me why it is better or worse than the appendix.
Czarcasm, you seem to me to be too overly emotionally involved. I’m kinda new here, and feeling my way around. I said “board”, not “thread.” And I was simply agreeing with what Stoneburg said. I’m sorry I can’t quote chapter and verse immediately from everything I’ve read in the four months I’ve been here, but one does, in time, develop a feeling for the prevailing gestalt of a place; and I do sense that mention of “spirituality” (yes, printed “air quotes”) tends toward making one persona non grata, or at least one to be amusedly condescended to. Perhaps I was looking for an interesting discussion here, rather than a debate, but there’s no forum for that. I’m certainly not looking for a heated argument. If the thread needs to be shut down because I don’t know what I’m talking about, so be it; but I didn’t think that absolute certainty about one’s position was a requirement for participation.
I think it is the word “spiritual” that is causing the problem in this context. What we are talking about could also be described as “consciousness”, “emptiness” or “the ground of being”. I had the same aversion to the word myself at first, since I come from a very materialistic/atheistic background.
I agree that that is the weakest part of my hypothetical.
I think it is the word “spiritual” that is causing the problem in this context. What we are talking about could also be described as “consciousness”, “emptiness” or “the ground of being”.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, okay; if perception of “the ground of being” is an evolutionary response, please explain to Bryan Ekers why it is better or worse than the appendix.
Why the hell would I want to do anything like that? I’m trying to have a conversation with the very few people that are actually interested in talking about this in an open and honest way, and who has some insights into it. If you know nothing about spirituality or depth psychology and are just interested in trying to fit everything that is being said into your preconceived notions, that is YOUR problem, not mine, and I am under no obligation to give you a crash course in neither psychology, spirituality or anything else. I posted a link to a very short summary of Spiral Dynamics as well as a map that outlines the various stages of psychological development, if you haven’t even looked at that, you’re obviously not interested in a real dialogue, so why pretend? Either make an actual effort to expand your view and knowledge base or just leave the subject alone.
To interest people in the idea, by mentioning how it’d be of use.
Well, then, you’ve got a guy who asked for an explanation of how it’s better or worse than an appendix. So have a conversation with him! He’s interested!
If that were the case, you’d be right. It’s not the case, so I disregarded the rest.
Good thing I bloody well looked at it, then!
I choose – the former. Whew! Quite a relief, that!
Geez, chill out, Stoneburg. If you don’t want to address it, nobody will force you to.
That said, it seems conceivable to me that a “spiritual” sense could indeed be an evolutionary response, but perhaps one we no longer need and is occasionally harmful, like the appendix.
Stoneburg, I see that we are sympatico. Lemme look into your links and get back to you. P.S. I came from the opposite direction.
Your claims that other posters are not interested in “integrity” or “honesty” are out of line.
You will refrain from such accusations in the future.
After your attacks about “honesty” and “integrity,” this passage is both ironic and misplaced.
You are the one who wandered into a thread and began using the word “spirituality” in a way that you, yourself, admit is not the usual meaning of the word. Your attempt to claim that other posters are ignorant of the field of psychology or the practice of meditation, (and why do you limit it to Eastern meditation when the West has a long and lively tradition of meditation?), strikes me as disingenuous, at best.
In the future, if you intend to employ words using non-standard definitions, the honest approach would be to explain your choices/definitions up front rather than getting snide when people using the standard definitions challenge your claims based on their understanding of generally accepted definitions.
Set forth the definitions you intend to employ, then avoid equivocation and refrain from snide remarks.
[ /Moderating ]
Real spirituality (as opposed to religion or woo-woo) is about an exploration into the very nature of consciousness itself, an investigation into where the sense of “I am” arises and what it is that makes up our so called ego or limited sense of self. This is what authentic practitioners of meditation and self-inquiry are doing, they are essentially trying to see through the illusion of a small and contracted “me” and look at reality without preconceived filters. The goal of the eastern wisdom traditions is what is called moksha, liberation or enlightenment, where the individual sense of self finally leaves the body/mind system.
In terms of western psychology, this is what Jung called “psychic death”, what the psychedelic crowd calls “ego death” and what is described in integral psychology or spiral dynamics as a “phase shift” or “quantum leap of consciousness”. While the east has generally had a very mystical interpretation of this, it’s quite translatable to western psychological terms as well and fits very neatly into what can be seen as the evolution of the individual persons mind. We all go through somewhat predictable and universal stages, although how far we get and how it manifests itself will be unique to every individual. Basically everyone learns to crawl before they learn to walk, and everyone moves through a worldview that starts out as ego-centric (only me needs matter) then grows through ethnocentric (my family/tribe/nation matters) to world centric (all humans matter) and finally cosmocentric (all life and all sentient beings matter). That is the urge of evolution to expand, grow and become more and more inclusive.
While the east have been focused on the subjective and the experience/view of “wholeness”, the west has been focused on the objective and the different parts, especially since the western “Enlightenment”. When these two perspectives are combined, we get something similar to what the AQAL map that I linked represents, that shows both the evolution of the individual mind as well as our collective level of consciousness.
I’m not sure what is meant by a “spiritual sense”. I assume it is the idea of a heightened or different sort of sense that can see things that not ordinary people can. Like those who claim to be able to see auras or whatever. As far as I am concerned, that is not at all the point of spirituality. The point of spirituality as far as I see it is the end of suffering and the realization of ones true nature. To fundamentally answer the question “Who/what am I?” not in the way of another mind made story like “I’m a this or that” or “I’m a good/bad person” but as in “What the hell is it that is having this ‘me’-experience? What am I really when my mind isn’t busy telling me stories?”. And the “psychic death” is the result of getting that question answered. And the answer to the question “How does this help me?” is that it doesn’t help “you” at all, it removes the “you” from the equation. You essentially get to see reality for what it is, when there isn’t a self-referencing process going on.
From a psychological perspective this could be seen as the end of the psychological healing process, which is almost always about creating distance and awareness. When you talk to a psychologist you basically bring whatever issue that it is you have into awareness and detach from it. What the serious meditators are trying to do is essentially get rid of ALL of it, and those who succeed are known as enlightened or “awake”.
Examples of people alive today who are generally accepted by the spiritual community (if there is such a thing) as fundamentally awake are Adyashanti, Lisa Cairns, Mooji and Tolle, but of course there are many, many more (and many people who are awake but don’t talk about it). But since all of this is seen as religious woo-woo by the atheists and “heresy” by the religious people, the phenomenon is not widely known in the west. In the east this phenomenon is much more widely accepted and basically what their religions are organized around. But in the west this sort of “ascension” has been a big no-no from the religious establishment and traditionally we have killed or at least silenced those who have managed to attain higher levels of consciousness (because they tend to radically want to upset the status quo of oppressive religions).
So that’s where Gurren Lagann got their spiral stuff from.
More seriously, the stuff Stoneburg is talking about (ego death, oneness with all, etc.) is the same sort of experience you can get by dropping acid, eating shrooms or other psychedelic experiences. That’s probably seen as cheating, though a lot of people do react to it like it was a religious experience or awakening.
He wouldn’t because, as other shave said, any creature that is telling the truth will be right beyond random chance just based on the capabilities given in the OP.
For example, we now these critters can confirm the existence of the surface. And we know that the existence of light allows a critter to find the surface. So all these critters need to do is test whether each claimant can find the surface with better than random chance.
That simple experiment that would settle the matter, and we don’t need to know more about the capabilities of the critters than we were given in the OP.
You have absolutely no idea how far along human evolution is. There are species that have been here a hell of a lot longer than we have, and evolution hasn’t blessed them with any magical abilities-it just doesn’t work that way in real life. If we evolve any further, it will be to adjust to the environment we live in. If our environment is somewhat stable, there is no reason for any evolution to happen. There may be an occasional mutation…but it will most assuredly be of a physical, not spiritual or supernatural, nature.
So that would be an example of a scientific experiment that could be done to prove the veracity of the “religious” critter’s claim. I think the OP’s point is that such experiment CANNOT be done to verify his chosen human religion, but that we should not discount the claims just because we cannot verify them.
But that means we have to take the argument to the next level: All unverified religious/spiritual/supernatural claims must be considered of equal value. My time is valuable, limited, and filled with things that are real as it is, so unless you can come up with some evidence(please note that I said “evidence”, not “proof”) for your pet claim, I don’t see a need to put it at the top of the look-see list.