Spirituality - what is it in essence?

[StonerBill]

As soon as man descovered the essence of 'meaning' or 'creation', he has to ask teh question of who caused this, and who created that.
In very old times, suck as with the days of mythology, in old hindu beliefs, and in various other paths of spirituality, beliefs all stem back to the reason and creator of things.

However, as time progressed, the meaning and creator of many thigns gradually began to get fewer, and more generalised.

regardless of the past, in the last few hundred years, science has descovered a lot about how the world works. and along with science, have come new views on religion/spirituality.

People say science and spirituality are combatible forms. i dont believe so. i see science as the opposite to spirituality. I dont define science as what scientists descover necessarily, since they arent always right, but as the form of the universe that is based on unmotivated, defined processes, whereby each individual fundemantal particle is governed seperately by the same rules, and the result ends up creating magnificent, complex natural phenomenon, from stars to tapeworms to the human brain.

i see spirituality as merely an explination of anything whereby the process of science has not been established, or convinced apon an individual.

nowadays we have people who follow their religion purely in the basis of their questions of life and death, and the beginning of the universe. yet they follwo science for everything that can be explained, such as the physics of a ball dropping, and the chemical buildup of the food theyre eating. they choose which aspects to follow and which to not, and it jsut so happens that the ones they follow are the ones that have been most easily explained by physics caus they have the least diversity and mix of scientific rules.

no person will ever know the origin of everything, because no one was around when it happened. no one alive will ever know what its like after death because theyd be dead. we dont fully know the brain either. it is encreidbly hard to study.
"if the human brain was simple enough for us to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it; and if we were smart enough to understand it, it would be too complex for us to understand"

The origin of the universe, what happens after death, and the basis of the 'soul' and 'spiritual connection' (which i define to be centred within the brain, where the mind is) are the three biggest concepts of religion and spirituality today. all beliefs have a say on these three issues.

there are other issues as well, but they are often more specific to the religion.

and so, i have come to define spirituality as the default meaning or controlling force behind everything that a person does not comrehend.

many religions then claim that the rules of physics and science are governed by their god or spiritual force, but this in the end, is people choosing which beliefs they will keep.

anything that a human chooses on is clearly not going to be as credible as something that humans do not have control over, the laws of physics.

one may aregue that their spirituality IS this force that drives the laws of physics, but then deny any science that contradicts their belief.

the most common response to atheism ive found is 'that must be pretty bland' (blandness leading meaninglessness, leading to sad feelings, or to boredom which in turn leads to sad feleings or 'that must be pretty depressing, to believe that death is just the end'. and the most common claim by people of spirituality is that 'it makes me feel good, i feel god' or 'i feel the force of nature inside me' or 'ive felt the higher power's presence'
no one has ever believed in a spirituality 'because it makes me feel bad'. of course they wouldnt! if a religion felt bad then why would you follow it? the only form of belief that follows this is science, and this is more based on the fact that it makes humans feel bad because humans desire waht is not claimable.

Most spiritual beliefs are based on the 'feeling' one gets. but anyone experienced with drugs will know that feelings do not equate to reality in any way.


i dont believe it has anything to do with intelligence or wisdom, it has to do with feelings, and feelings, in the end, are the driving force of our mind, not our reasoning abilty. and so there is nothing wrong with following your feelings, though i dont think people sahould put ultimate faith in the reality of what they believe.


a drug addict can still know waht theyre doing is wrong and ruining their life, but give in to their feelings anyway. they cant be blamed, but it doesnt make their feelings correct.

just because a god might make you feel good, or you feel their presence, doesnt make it real.




sorry that this is a bit clumsily written, but i didnt really plan the thread, structure wise.

what are your oppinions and feedback to my current belief? what is your take on the basis of spirituality? this is mine, now its your turn to post yours.

please, if your going to claim anything, be it good or bad, explain WHY, for simply saying 'your ignorant' is ignorant to yourself, and what can be worse than that?

[TrippinBTM]

People say science and spirituality are combatible forms. i dont believe so. i see science as the opposite to spirituality.
I disagree. Science addresses "how" and spirituality addresses "why". They seem to be the same question, but are really very different, if you think about it.

Besides, whatever science finds, it will be in line with whatever true spirituality there might be, likewise, the spirituality would be in line with scientific facts. They are seperate but parallel inquiries...seperate only in the methods and what they answer...they both exist in the same reality.

[Hikaru Zero]

Aye. Someone who is RELIGIOUS will conflict with science. Science and religion do not go hand in hand, that is true. But a SPIRITUAL person does not have to defy the laws of physics to try to explain the metaphysical. I'm an example of that; I don't discredit science by any means, though I do (in a sense) believe certain things about the metaphysical, even if I don't base my life off of them.

Spirituality and religion are also found together very often ... which is why it is easy to confuse the two.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Einstein was a great scientific mind, and also spiritual. And one of my alltime heroes.
To me, the essence of spirituality is the sum of one's life experiences to date expressed as their current belief system. Whether someone is spiritual without any affiliation to an organized faith, or atheist, Buddhist, Sikh, Christian, etc., the idea that they must defend the choice to anyone is something I see as wrong. I owe no one an explanation of why I believe what I do. I may tell you willingly, but I do so with no expectations of your opinion, and no desire to hear why I am wrong..........
It is pointless to explain a lifetime of stuff when I feel sure that no one can ever really know my reality.

Peace and love to all.

[BlackBillBlake]

Most spiritual beliefs are based on the 'feeling' one gets. but anyone experienced with drugs will know that feelings do not equate to reality in any way.



I don't know if that's quite true. It could be that in some cases it's based just on conditioning, whilst in others, it may be based on experience of 'non-ordinary reality'. Feeling may play very little part, esp. in the second of these instances.

Also - feeling may actually equate with reality. If I take drugs or not and something bad happens, I may feel bad about it. I may feel threatened by a group of drunks - the feeling may be quite valid, as they may be out looking for trouble.

[StonerBill]

all ants are insects but not all insects are ants

i think there was a bit of a misinterpretation, but im not in teh right mind to reply at the moment

[StonerBill]

well yer, the 'how' or 'why' question.

can you clarify the difference?

essentially, im saying that spirituality adresses every hole we have in understanding how the universe works, in human terms.

i didnt mean that they were opposing forces sorry, i meant that they were completely different forms. one is based on rules, the other is based on motive, meaning.

nature doesnt have motives or meaning, it has rules. the only place we whitness these thigns are with the mind. however, rules apply for every single thing we know of.

spirituality can try to justify physics, but waht spirituality adresses the 'why' of why mass has gravity? or the 'why' of why light is constant for any frame of reference?

they adress the why's of issues that matter to humans. no spirituality makes humans out to be below animals, they only make out humans to be equal or higher. no spirituality puts meaning in things that are not known by humans, yet we know that we dont comrehend everything!

Science is ultimately the same as whatever spirituality is real. science is the only thing we know is real, so we should follow it, no? in the end, if the real spirituality was found, there would be no more questions to ask.

imagine a world wihtout questions

it would remove part of humanity

man asked why, and when no one answered, a spirit did.

Humans can go crazy not knowing something, so evidently the spirit was doing him a favour.

and blackguard, i guess you could say thats waht it is as well, a life's experiences. an essense of what makes us human, but no physical construction.

and no young person is truelly spiritual, when you think about it.

i think im mixing up too many definitions of spiritual as well haha

[TrippinBTM]

well yer, the 'how' or 'why' question.

can you clarify the difference?

essentially, im saying that spirituality adresses every hole we have in understanding how the universe works, in human terms.

i didnt mean that they were opposing forces sorry, i meant that they were completely different forms. one is based on rules, the other is based on motive, meaning.
Right, "why" has to do with motive, "how" has to do with cause and effect, mere mechanics. And I agree that both science and spirituality must agree (if they don't, our conception of either science or spirituality, or both, must be wrong) because they both exist together, sort of as two coexisting planes. To be honest, I am not even sure that science and spirituality are different in any way, except that perhaps our method of science is too narrow in its view. Why whould they be seperate, if the material and spiritual coexist in the same reality? (by the way, I don't see material and spiritual as being seperate, I consider it a false dichotomy).

The wya I see it, modern science is not the perfect method it is seen to be, though it is a DAMN good one for most questions. The problem is, it can never answer very major questions like where the universe came from, because physics start at the big bang. Previous to that, there were no physics occuring. But why then did it happen, what caused it? You end up with a nonsense question: What could cause the creation of all that exists, if nothing existed before that moment? Only spirituality can penetrate that, the basic question of why is there something rather than nothing.

Likewise, science cannot answer the question "Who am I" in a meaningful way. It can talk about human anatomy, how the brain works, etc, but it can't tell us where this sense of being comes from, why we feel aware. (maybe it will someday, but I doubt it). It can't even explain how chemical signals in the brain end up giving me the very real perception of words being spoken in my head as I think.

I suppose my problem with science is that it is very factual but neglects the "human" side of things, the way things feel, our experience of the world. It does a great job with facts but doesn't address this key issue.

I don't have the spiritual answers for you, either, but that is the only place I feel these answers can be found.

[StonerBill]

but arent all the 'big' questions wuestions relating to a 'purpose' or a 'meaning', things that are only ever present in human reasoning and culture, yet not whitnessed anywhere in nature?

humans need to stop believing we are the most advanced, elite organisms on the planet and then maybe the perspective of the 'big' questions would be more clear. almost all questions are aimed at finding the human concept in the universe. the only belief that doesnt base itself on some sort of motive or subjectivism is science.

i think that will only happen when an alternate intelligent being is descovered, or created, to put humans in perspective.

Spiritual matters are observed purely subjectively, whereas science is obseved objectively, though conventional 'science' is often interfered with by subjectivity.


spirituality: subjective interpretation of the universe
science: objective interpretation of the universe

does that work?

[BlackGuardXIII]

no spirituality makes humans out to be below animals
no young person is truelly spiritual

spirituality: subjective interpretation of the universe
science: objective interpretation of the universe

does that work?

StonerBill

There are certain spiritual concepts that consider we are below all other animals. They believe that our power of reason is a curse, a flaw that makes our quest to live in harmony with nature much harder.

I think a spiritual young person is not impossible, but is quite rare.

does that work? It kinda does. I would only add that science may be more objective, but it is never totally so. The researcher who designs the experiment is biased towards what answer he is looking for. There are many more ways that the observer can be shown to be a subjective part of the experiment.
And the other side has its exceptions too, some spiritual people are very skilled at objectively assessing the data they take in through their senses

But I still agree, in general, the majority of the time, what you say sounds right to me. Science and Spirituality are as a rule as you say

[TrippinBTM]

I agree with what blackguard said. Makes sense.


Bill, you say science is the only system that is objective. Although we can probably agree, as blackguard said, it isn't totally objective. So, if you choose science over spirituality (subjectivity), you basically throw out all the human experience throughout history. I don't believe you can just discount the subjective experience, that, when you get down to it, is the most important thing to a person.

[BlackGuardXIII]

http://www.crystalinks.com/gpstats.html



just some cool pyramid trivia.


I have such an extremely unacceptable subjective reality in most eyes, I am torn, do I just give it up..........41 yrs. old, i could just try to forget the stuff i read.......seriously......it is so disappointing and wearisome, and causes me despair sometimes to ever be challenged by those who suspect a rat.......no rat.....just a subjective reality that is way effed up......I wouldn't believe me either, okay?

[TrippinBTM]

http://www.crystalinks.com/gpstats.html
That link has some crazy info on it...very interesting.

[StonerBill]

When i define science, i mean it as the reality, not necessarily what scientists theorise, we dont know everything about science, and probably never will. but we know a fair bit.

And just because subjectivity is important to humans doesnt make it more real.

[BlackGuardXIII]

When i define science, i mean it as the reality, not necessarily what scientists theorise, we dont know everything about science, and probably never will. but we know a fair bit.

And just because subjectivity is important to humans doesnt make it more real.
When I define science, I mean the only faith were the members each have their own scripture. I see it as the study of this illusion called material existence. It is all transient, all impermanent, and therefore to me, the only reality is spirit.
We may never know everything about science, we surely won't know it all about spirit, at least for sure until we die.

Subjectivity is not necessarily important, but it is unavoidable, and the only reality. Objectivity is an ideal, like perfection, unattainable.

The more I learn, the less I know. Peter Gabriel.
It takes a smart man to know how stupid he is. Barney Rubble.
If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't. Lyall Watson
We can all have different views, and all be right. me

[BlackBillBlake]

When i define science, i mean it as the reality, not necessarily what scientists theorise, we dont know everything about science, and probably never will. but we know a fair bit.

And just because subjectivity is important to humans doesnt make it more real.
Does science exist outside the mind of the scientist? Hard to see where or how.

[TrippinBTM]

When i define science, i mean it as the reality, not necessarily what scientists theorise,
Thats a really poor way to define science. Science is a method for understanding reality, it isn't reality itself. Your misuse of the word is confusing at best.

[BlackGuardXIII]

My favorite scientists all have a certain spiritual quality about them, like Einstein, Newton, and excuse the spelling, Richard Feynman? I know thats wrong.....

[BlackBillBlake]

Thats a really poor way to define science. Science is a method for understanding reality, it isn't reality itself. Your misuse of the word is confusing at best.
I agree Brandon up to a point, but I'd go further and say science is actually a DESCRIPTION of reality.

[TrippinBTM]

I agree Brandon up to a point, but I'd go further and say science is actually a DESCRIPTION of reality. I suppose. I was just going along the lines of it being the "scientific method" which is how science is done. But yeah, I guess it ends up as a description.

[StonerBill]

Does science exist outside the mind of the scientist? Hard to see where or how.thats pretty egotistical.

i see it as being really naive, this mindset (though of course its just my beliefs and your beliefs in the end). why must humans deny themselves as part of the world we live in, not part of their consciousness. for all that matters to YOU it might jsut be consciousness, but since when does a human's feeling even equate to the world we 'percieve'?

i see our minds as simply being the result (illusion.. but we are the illusion, so its like.. illuding itself/yourself to teh idea of the mind) of each brain function acting together. theyre all seperate parts of the brain yet when working together, they combine to make the mind, which is part of the material-based world we live in

[BlackBillBlake]

thats pretty egotistical.

i see it as being really naive, this mindset (though of course its just my beliefs and your beliefs in the end). why must humans deny themselves as part of the world we live in, not part of their consciousness. for all that matters to YOU it might jsut be consciousness, but since when does a human's feeling even equate to the world we 'percieve'?

i see our minds as simply being the result (illusion.. but we are the illusion, so its like.. illuding itself/yourself to teh idea of the mind) of each brain function acting together. theyre all seperate parts of the brain yet when working together, they combine to make the mind, which is part of the material-based world we live in

So where does science exist outside the mind of the scientist?
To say that science exists outside of human consciousness doesn't make sense. Thats not to say that the world is not real or that it is real. It is simply saying that science, in the end, or at least theoretical science, is a human mental description of reality.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying about human feeling not equating with the world. Feeling really has no place in objective science - is that your point?

[TrippinBTM]

So where does science exist outside the mind of the scientist?
To say that science exists outside of human consciousness doesn't make sense. Thats not to say that the world is not real or that it is real. It is simply saying that science, in the end, or at least theoretical science, is a human mental description of reality.
yeah, it's like you said, reality exists, and science is a description of it. But the description (science) isn't just floating around out there...descriptions are created by humans.

[Kharakov]

My favorite scientists all have a certain spiritual quality about them, like Einstein, Newton, and excuse the spelling, Richard Feynman? I know thats wrong.....
Feynman is right. Found a neat book he wrote "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" in my parents basement.

It's cool that the great pyramid has a constant internal temp of 62 degrees.

[StonerBill]

it doesnt matter if its a descirption! im talking about the essence of science, what IS reality. of course humans can only percieve science in a human way. but i percieve reality instead of percieving spirituality. spirituality, i see, is the human way of fixing all the holes in human perception of reality, filling them in with totally human concepts.

this includes the concept of 'why', for it is not a concept found in reality, only in human mind: and spirituality.

[StonerBill]

i think the concepts of spirituality should be incorperated into sociology and as a way of apreciating the human qualities we have, but i dont think it should impose on judgement of the world outside of the mind.

[TrippinBTM]

it doesnt matter if its a descirption! im talking about the essence of science, what IS reality. of course humans can only percieve science in a human way. but i percieve reality instead of percieving spirituality. spirituality, i see, is the human way of fixing all the holes in human perception of reality, filling them in with totally human concepts.

this includes the concept of 'why', for it is not a concept found in reality, only in human mind: and spirituality.And I'm just saying you're misusing the word "science"! Science is not reality, it's a method of describing/understanding it. Any scientist will tell you science is not 100% fact, it's theory and always open to revision. Is reality open to revision, in a fundamental sence? That's the point, man.

The question is, you precieve reality, but do you really not precieve it in a non-spiritual (that is to say, non-subjective) way? Science strives for the objective but cannot really ever reach it. Humans are by nature a mix of the subjective and spiritual, which for this thread at least means spirituality and science. Maybe an enlightened soul like a Buddha or something can be truly objective, but that's not something I know for sure, I'm not even close to that level of knowing.

Sorry if this makes no sense, i've been having some vodka. It seems to make sense to me right now, but given my subjective drunkenness, I can't say, haha. ;)

[BlackBillBlake]

it doesnt matter if its a descirption! im talking about the essence of science, what IS reality. of course humans can only percieve science in a human way. but i percieve reality instead of percieving spirituality. spirituality, i see, is the human way of fixing all the holes in human perception of reality, filling them in with totally human concepts.

this includes the concept of 'why', for it is not a concept found in reality, only in human mind: and spirituality.
But what is 'the essence' of science? And how do you percieve reality?

You say 'humans can only percieve science in a human way' - but is science something 'out there'? I say it isn't. It is a human mode of describing/seeking to understand reality. Religion and spirituality, and also philosophy also seek to understand reality, but from a different angle, using different methods.
However, religion & philosophy are only other types of descriptions of reality.

As to the question 'why'? - scientists too seek to answer this. On one level an example would be something like this: a certain chemical reaction is observed between two substances - the scientific knowledge we posses can tell us why that reaction occured - because of known properties of the substances involved.
And also, if one counts psychoanalysis etc and psychology as branches of science, they are most certainly interested also in the 'why' of human behaviour.


i think the concepts of spirituality should be incorperated into sociology and as a way of apreciating the human qualities we have, but i dont think it should impose on judgement of the world outside of the mind.

Sociology already studies religion and spirituality to the extent that they are part of society.

[Kharakov]

yeah, it's like you said, reality exists, and science is a description of it. But the description (science) isn't just floating around out there...descriptions are created by humans.
I disagree. In my experience the description has always been floating around out there (although I was born in 1975, maybe it wasn't floating around 22,000 years ago).

[TrippinBTM]

I disagree. In my experience the description has always been floating around out there (although I was born in 1975, maybe it wasn't floating around 22,000 years ago).I'm not sure you understood my meaning. I mean science as a process and a description is a human invention; but reality is not, and it exists independent of whatever it is we THINK about it.

[StonerBill]

i think you guys are just trying to make humans seem special and on a different level to reality. what humans see is the real world. its not just in our minds. an organism would have no use of senses that do not portray its surroundings

What you describe in words is obviously just a human description but the ideas of matter and energy and physics are not dependant on human mind. they are observed externally, while spirituality is observed internally.

science is observed basically the same from all sober minds, though the concepts involved are generally not understood. spirituality is something that is based on that person's mind and feeling and belief.

can someone please refer me to a spiritual observation that did not involve some sort of 'feeling' or 'sense' outside of our 5 recognised senses?


if something cannot be observed then it has no physical impact.

people say 'just caus you cant feel it, see it, means its not real? your crazy' well sorry but if it cannot be physically detected then it means it can only be psychologically detected. if something is only psychologically detectable, then does it not make it only an impact on the mind? and if its only an impact on the mind does this not mean that it is a result of the mind's processes, just as detectable forces are a result of reality's processes?

[TrippinBTM]

i think you guys are just trying to make humans seem special and on a different level to reality. what humans see is the real world. its not just in our minds. an organism would have no use of senses that do not portray its surroundings

What you describe in words is obviously just a human description but the ideas of matter and energy and physics are not dependant on human mind. they are observed externally, while spirituality is observed internally.

science is observed basically the same from all sober minds, though the concepts involved are generally not understood. spirituality is something that is based on that person's mind and feeling and belief.
First, I'm not elevating humans above anything else.

Second, science is not set in stone, it changes as new info comes to light. This makes it a description of reality, not reality itself (which exists on its own, whether we know about it or not). Yes, we can observe reality, but why are you calling it science?

[BlackBillBlake]

stoner bill:
can someone please refer me to a spiritual observation that did not involve some sort of 'feeling' or 'sense' outside of our 5 recognised senses?


if something cannot be observed then it has no physical impact.

people say 'just caus you cant feel it, see it, means its not real? your crazy' well sorry but if it cannot be physically detected then it means it can only be psychologically detected. if something is only psychologically detectable, then does it not make it only an impact on the mind? and if its only an impact on the mind does this not mean that it is a result of the mind's processes, just as detectable forces are a result of reality's processes?

How about love? It can't be detected by any physical means, yet most would agree that it is real enough.
And it makes a big impact on the mind. Same is also true of other human feelings.

[StonerBill]

Well i think youll find the only thigns that love are minds, and that the mind can be rationalised into chemical signals working together in a complex system. love is an emotion like any other. It is an evolutionary trait, to those who believe in evolution at least, and if anything, is a survival triat.

If love is a spiritual sign, then doesnt that make ecstacy spirituality in a pill? well thats what i actually do believe in essence, though its saying more about spirituality than ecstacy

[StonerBill]

and trippin, you keep refering to science as the science thats written in text books. this is not the science im referring to. Im referring to the basic laws of nature that are completely objective. non-motiveless universe. spirituality is not an objective force, it is a subjective force.

[StonerBill]

Science is also the only belief that keeps getting closer and closer to its goal. To assume humans can comprehend by now the essence of the universe is incredibly naive and typical of those who do elevate humans to a supreme level

[BlackGuardXIII]

Science is also the only belief that keeps getting closer and closer to its goal. To assume humans can comprehend by now the essence of the universe is incredibly naive and typical of those who do elevate humans to a supreme level
I think His Holiness the Dalai Lama would not agree. I feel that the sincere followers of all paths towards enlightenment are getting nearer their goal.
I totally agree with your second point, and would add that I find it arrogant as well to claim that humans are better than our fellow earth dwelling lifeforms. When we get too big, I feel that we will face the same fate that any other members of the ecosystem do. When there are too many wolves, the deer population plummets, and the wolves starve, and the deer recover. We are not above nature, just one small part of it.
Regarding love........I disagree that it is a product of mind. I have read a great deal of good scientific data that suggests that the heart is not just a pump, but contains memories, tastes, etc.
All the sayings that refer to 'having heart', did not come into being for no reason. "His heart wasn't in it." "He is all heart." "with all your heart", "follow your heart." "from the bottom of my heart." "heartless" "heart of gold"
On a totally unrelated note, picture a mother shaking hands with her children.....doesn't that seem out of place? Something to ponder........

[TrippinBTM]

and trippin, you keep refering to science as the science thats written in text books. this is not the science im referring to. Im referring to the basic laws of nature that are completely objective. non-motiveless universe. spirituality is not an objective force, it is a subjective force.And you aren't listening when I say you are misusing the word science. Those laws exist only on paper. They are our description of how the universe works; descriptions of the patterns we see in nature. If you want to talk about those patterns, fine; but don't call it "science", because science is a method/description of an objective reality, not an objective reality itself. Call it nature or the universe.

[BlackBillBlake]

Well i think youll find the only thigns that love are minds, and that the mind can be rationalised into chemical signals working together in a complex system. love is an emotion like any other. It is an evolutionary trait, to those who believe in evolution at least, and if anything, is a survival triat.

If love is a spiritual sign, then doesnt that make ecstacy spirituality in a pill? well thats what i actually do believe in essence, though its saying more about spirituality than ecstacy
I don't agree with this. I don't think love is only a mental phenomena.
Animals - dogs etc display affection but that's not to say they have minds such as ours.
I didn't claim love is a spiritual sign. I said it is a feeling among other feelings which affect the mind.
For all I can say on the matter, ecstacy may be 'spirituality in a pill'.(I've never tried it so I can't venture any judgement).
I can however say that LSD can be 'spirituality in a tiny pill'. But that doesn't mean the spirituality is only a product of LSD. Could be that these substances open the consciousness to ranges of which we are not usually aware. Others, yogis and so on, claim to access the same levels through meditation, trance etc.

[StonerBill]

I guess it all comes down to oppinions at this level.

Expect me to have settled the issue in the next 50 years! ;)after ive written a book more controversial and influential than Origin of Species :p

[Olympic-Bullshitter]

All carry a person's essence, but saliva, the liquid that comes directly from the place where words can be spoken, is the strongest because of the power of words.

[heywood floyd]

Well, I'm not going to sort through every last detail of this thread, but I will say that there are theories out there (okay, sorry, no names)... that suggest that the universe can be said to be comprised of information.

The interpretation of this information doesn't have to produce any grand conclusion-- things exist as basic units of existence which express certain sensations under whatever concepts or ideas we choose to understand them through-- of course, these concepts are constantly chosen by the interpretation, which in turn is assigned a certain weight according to other pre-existing interpretations with which those interact.

Probably, the truth is that every possible or impossible thing is equally relevant-- however the way we are set up, we prioritize-- and assign greater weight to certain pieces of information over others, try to associate the more important things with other more important things, because they strike us as being so, according to an interaction of preconceived interpretations, which perpetually influence each other to an almost indecipherable complexity.

'Spirituality' as a word has no real concrete definition-- some people revere the term because it conjures up images or sensations they associate as 'higher' than what they already have... but too often it ends up being another system of dividing and prioritizing, structuring sensations, events, and activities from top to bottom so that they can achieve some sense of potential, or hope, or progress. Basically, people use their 'spirituality' as an attempt to escape themselves, or to try to be more than they already are. In some cases (such as organized religion), a text is used to pre-assign positive or negative values to actions which respectively empower or threaten the stances of authorities, either to organize people into a society, or to reaffirm one's power base.

Ironically, it is this inherent need to prioritize and structure that produces dissatisfaction... as it positions the individual outside of himself and his reality, and inside a hierarchical distortion which in itself can, by virtue of its existence, be no more or less true than the rest of the information.

[espfeelit]

perception>brain processing> reality. perception that a majority share in a whole is often the reality that is embraced, and many other ideals are cast aside. with that, spirituality, is expressed in all major denominations, being practical, 95 percent of the world is spiritual. spirituality is expressed in groups to create a "norm" and satisfy a need of the human mind "to be wanted."