Spirituality?

Great Debates
1

Several times recently I’ve run into the use of the term “spirituality” in contexts that distinguish it from religion. Loosely translated, it seems to imply matters dealing with that largely non-rational aspect of humans that seeks to find meaning in the world about them and reacts more or less emotionally to works of art, issues of concern, etc. For example, the majority of people find “their spirits lifted” – a sense of playful joy – in hearing Pachelbel’s Canon in D, and a similar phenomenon, with a note of triumph replacing the playfulness – in the Choral passage from Beethoven’s 9th Symphony. Most people experience a sense of catharsis from watching a tragedy being performed. And so on through other arts. There are those who advocate activities associated in the past largely with religions, such as retreats, meditation, and so on, for “spiritual growth” but are quick to stress that this does not carry a religious implication.

My question would be how Great Debaters, coming from a variety of worldviews and mindsets, fit this idea of a human spiritual nature into their personal views. I think what the average theist thinks is pretty obvious, but Gaudere as an artist who is atheist, and David B. as a rationalist, Freyr with his background and specialized views, and so on, may have some very valuable and useful things to say about this rather amorphous concept.

2

I suppose from this UU’s point of view that “spirituality” is rather more all-encompassing (like UUism itself) than “religion” - carries too much historical baggage, I suppose. Still, UUism is a religion. In fact, some people shrug it off as “spiritual” rather than religious or a “real” religion (and usually intend it as a slur).

Interesting. Shall we look at Mr. Webster?

So it would seem that spirituality is related to religion, but not vice-versa.

Hmmm. Interesting.

For kicks, let’s look up “spiritual”:

As you pointed out,it seems “religion” has more God-oriented connotations, whereas “spiritual” has more non-earthly connotations.

Esprix

3

In my experience with being a member of a 12-step organization, “spirituality” is sometimes used as code for “religious stuff”. It’s to make it more palatable to those (such as myself) who find overt religious discussion distasteful. BTW, the 12-step philosophy is firmly rooted in Christian theology, hence the need for some kind of code in the first place.

Robin

4

“Spiritual” is a rather loaded word to use in this case, implying as it does the existence of a spirit. Nevertheless, I’ll use it for the nonce.

When I paint, I invoke a degree of ritual and symbolism to put many religious ceremonies to shame. I never just throw the canvas on the easel and start. I could do that (I can buy pre-made, pre-gessoed canvasses), but that’s simply not the proper way to do it; not “proper” in the sense that buying pre-made stuff is wrong, but it subtracts an important element from the experience. There is a fairly rigorous ritual the night before, and a fairly rigorous ritual in the morning. Then of course, there’s extensive symbolism involved in the painting itself, and it’s not an arid symbolism; I use the symbols I do not because, say, historically we have believed skull==death and I want to evoke death, but because the skull actually invokes the reaction in me, so it is necessary to use it to achieve the reaction in me that I want. Painting is a symbol-laden ritual, and what it actually intends to achieve is not just a good painting, but the exploration and working through and reinforcing of certain emotions and a way to bring out in the open and deal with important issues in my life. Of course, all these things must result in a painting that is also aesthetically pleasing. So we have ritual, symbolism, introspection, aesthetics…why the hell would I need to go to church?

What does a “spritual response” say about humans?

We like looking at things that aesthetically please us, I suspect originally due to an association with health and plenty and safety. We can train our perceptions to find many other things aesthetically pleasing. I didn’t find modern art pleasing until I learned a great deal about it and saw many works; then I found more modern pieces to evoke the “spiritual” rush that I had previously only found with more realistic art. And in addition, many of the more realistic works I loved before then seemed banal and bland.

We like ritual. It makes us comfortable, and reminds us of the times when we performed the ritual before. Repetitive actions, if performed meditatively, can center us and prepare our mind for introspection. Fairly accurately repeating a beneficial action is a very useful trait and frees us from having to constantly flail about wondering what to do next, so doing so gives us a feeling of contentment and security.

Spending time to step back from the world and think about your life, decide what you want changed and what you want reinforced is generally good for us. Being able to be completely absorbed in a process of thought is useful as well.

Our deep-seated love of symbolism comes from our ability to think in metaphor; hell, I’d be pretty impressed with myself if I could convey to other people that paint-on-cave is a horse. It’s almost magic. I mean, you can take one thing and have it be something entirely different, and the excercise of that ability is amazing. It can make you believe the two separate things are actually somehow connected. This is, I think, how symbolic magic came about; and why plays, music and art, which are only symbols of “the real thing”, evoke such a powerful response in us. This is why we have our symbolic superstitions: a “winding sheet” on a candle signals death, break a mirror you lose your soul since you shattered an image of yourself, and so on.

Going to church or viewing a play also reinforces a sense of community, too, which makes our herd-instincts happy.

Since things like understanding metaphor and analogy and fondness for ritual and taking the time to actually think without distraction about something are good and useful attributes, we tend to have those capabilities in spades and things that incorporate these preferences “fulfill us spiritually”. We have umpteen thousand years reinforcing these behaviors, and they’re generally beneficial. Take then to extremes and you get OCD and belief in sympathetic magic and monomaniacs, but since these behaviors in smaller doses are generally so useful to us, our love of the less-necessary aspects of art and ritual does us no real harm and training those capabilities can do a great deal of good. Stretch your proficiency at metaphor by studying art, and perhaps you can use that to visualize the workings of a new scientific theory. Meditate and learn how to concentrate better. Frequently go to church and learn how to interact within a community.

That’s my opinion as to why people get a “spiritual” reponse from church or art or music, anyhow.

5

To me, it seems the word is used in two very different ways.

In the sense “lift my spirits”, it applies to my overall sense of being. My “spirit” is an intensely subjective connotation of my identity. It is a shorthand for the summation of all perceptions, memories, emotions and experiences that make my consciousness unique.

In the sense of “spiritual awakening” it embodies a feeling expansion beyond identity, an expression of empathy, unity, connectedness or belonging with that which is not “me”. This expansion can be broad or quite specific in scope.

In both senses, it speaks to concerns which have also traditionally been a part of organized religion, but the religious aspect is not necessary for either.

6

Gaudere, thanks for a thoughtful, and thought-provoking response. I might ask in your opinion why these things function as they do – expecting a psychological answer but prepared to be surprised as always by what you do say.

Spiritus, likewise. I appreciate your drawing that distinction, and I think I was confusing the two senses, and focusing on the second but illustrating it by reference to the first. In any case, as a person without “religious beliefs” in the commonly held sense (and I’ll be glad to caveat that if you should regard your worldview as akin to a religious belief), your interpretation of what the second sense means – how it functions, what its sense in partially comprising a person in a non-god-created world is, that sort of thing. I find the question difficult to focus on, given my own theistic perspective, and hope you will “interpret” a bit to define my question better from your worldview and then respond to it. (And I know that is an imposition, and thank you.)

7

I tried to explain as best I could within the contsraints of space as to why ritual reassures and centers us, communities gathering together for one cause appeals to our herd-animal nature, why concentrating on one thing can have good results, why symbols are powerful in our minds, why “aesthetic” things appeal to us and why all these things are advantageous to us. Was there something in particular you had a question about?

8

I certainly consider myself a person without religious beliefs.

Difficult to focus on, indeed. Even more difficult to express. Still – I’ve never been afraid to insert foot in mouth . . .

Function: A basis for empathy, a building block for social cohesion, a psychological comfort during times of great stress, an explosive escape from the isolation of identity,
a motivation to move beyond short-term self-interest as a driving principal. Shake well and serve in a context of personal revelation.

That all seems quite dry. As is often the case, the language of discourse can convey the concepts but not the essence.

My own “spiritual awakening” hit me thus: Others matter! I feel this directly and personally. I have no reason beyond point-of-view to exalt my own “self” above that of any other human being. Only frame of reference distinguishes what I feel from what you feel. Knowing this, I cannot honestly withold empathy. I cannot dismiss you. I cannot reduce you to irrelevancy. We are far more the same than our isolations can ever make us differ.

That isn’t right, but perhaps it conveys the feel of it.

It is not an imposition. You, as always, are a paragon of gentility among we churls.

And you are welcome.

9

Polycarp – Gaudere’s understanding definitely makes plenty of sense in the modern age. Most people purporting to be sola scriptura Christians get rather upset if you point out to them what the Bible actually says. They don’t really care, they just want an excuse to socialize and basically all have “belief-faith” in something they can all agree on no matter how flimsy it’s basis in scripture. Or whatever tenet of reality any herd wants to go with – be it voodoo or following Rev. Moon or Hubbard or Mein Kampf. All basically the same.

Herd of cows?

10

Carl Sagan has some interesting (to me anyway, and I see I’m quite the newbie in this thread) thoughts on the subject of spirituality in “The Demon-Haunted World”. If anyone’s interested, I’ll post some quotes, otherwise I’ll just sit back and listen to you guys.

11

My experience in NA is a little different. There are a growing number of athiests and agnostics in 12-step programs. And from what I’ve seen, a traditional ‘Christian’ in program is in a minority.

Part of the spriritual aspect of addiction (you’ll often hear of people entering the program being ‘spiritually and emotionally bankrupt’) is our complete self-centeredness. We thought only of our physical selves, what we needed, and how we could get it.
There are no hard and fast rules in NA about what spirituality is. It’s left to the individual to define for themselves. The definition I use comes from my American Heritage dictionary. “1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material”
To me, spirituality means being concerned with intangibles like someone else’s feelings and emotional well-being, right and wrong, truth, whats best for the community and trying to see the ‘big picture’.

Which I think can be summed up with Spritus Mundi’ words, “a motivation to move beyond short-term self-interest as a driving principal.”

12

Wonderful, and thank you to all.

Gaudere, I appreciate what you posted, and realize after reading your second response what the problem was. Best way to explain is to analogize: Have you ever encountered a thread that asks, in essence, if the Universe is 20 billion light years across, what’s outside it? After someone patiently explains that 4-dimensional curvature means that 3-D space has no edge and there’s nothing outside, the OP then asks, “Yeah, but what’s beyond it?” And you want to scream and throw things through your monitor?

I read your answer. It was very illuminating and informative. And I wanted the “why” for the causative factors you outlined, which on my sort of worldview would be due to the providence of God, or a teleological purpose, or some such, depending on what specifically we were talking about – and realized as I was driving home and thinking about your post and my question that “there’s nothing outside” – that they are that way because they are that way, on your worldview, and that my second question to you was essentially meaningless. Mea culpa, and with those gracious apologies my thanks for the enlightenment.

Spiritus, again I am grateful. I can see the social bond and the mutualistic functions of altruism being very effective means for enabling the human culture we see to operate together, and “causing” a great deal of the cultural affects that I referred to in the OP. I dunno about anybody else, but I’m getting great insight into varying views of human life from this thread.

13

Frankly, Poly, I try to stay away from the word. It has too many meanings to too many people. I, for one, never really know what a person could be talking about when they use it.

That said, I do no consider myself “spiritual.” But maybe if we come up with some semi-synonyms, I might fit into one of those groups. < shrug >

14

As some have said already, I find the term “spirituality” to have connotations which I do not wish to be inferred; hence, I tend not to use such nomenclature. I do not believe in the existence of a spirit proper, but spirit, as in one’s state of being. Spiritus Mundi stated something to the effect that spiritual things are twofold in nature. Although I feel quite similarly, I find some revision is necessary to thoroughly express my concept of spirituality.

As I already asserted, spirit is one’s state of being, but that statement requires a bit of elaboration. Spirit is essentially conciousness–it is a sense of identity in emotional and mental aspects. The distinction I would make is thus: I don’t find that which is externally spiritual, if you will, to be external. Empathy, awakening, enlightenment are connectedness concepts which one might attribute to something external insofar as it usually implies other entities or that which is beyond one’s identity. I do not find that relation to be true. Those concepts are neither external or interal. One cannot clearly define consciousness with all of its nuances.

Conciousness is dynamic. It is not something which is one’s property. My emotional and mental states are not mine in a strict sense. They are a product of my interaction with the environment. My identity cannot be defined as it is always changing. Consider the following analogy. The human body consumes. It processes. It discards. From moment to moment the composition is different. Cells have died and new ones have been created. Such it is with the spirit. Spirit, conciousness, or identity it not a something static. It is not something internal. It is a flux. The line which we draw between our selves and that which is external is somewhat arbitrary; moreover, that line is a product of our spiritual state. What we are aware of, where that line is drawn, what we let in and what we let out is the flux.

In summary, spirit is somewhat illusory. The constant flux of our perception, conception and interaction is precisely that which is our identity, our conciousness, or our spirit. That spirit reciprocates in turn to dictate perception, conception and interaction. It is a cycle, albeit a fuzzy one.

Of course, that is my personal view, so you may read “our” as “my,” “one” as “I,” etc. I hope this post adds to the variation.

15

Hmmm… Nen. You’re almost a Taoist.

You should read this translation of Chuang Tzu if you get a chance. Best one going.

16

jmullaney, I find many aspects of the Tao quite appealing, but I prefer Lao Tzu to Chuang Tzu.

17

That general impression is partly why I offered a specific translation. I’ve seen some real hatchet jobs that make Chuang Tzu give me a headache. Lao Tzu is a bit too much of a purist for me – I find Chuang Tzu to be more “practical” for lack of a better word.