OK let's try something here re "spirituality".

[dmallind]

I'm not sure if it's a well meaning but ill-defined attempt to explain a world view that falls between belief and nonbelief, or a corollary of the no trus scotsman intended to get people of the dogmatic and doctrinal hook, but it seems there's an awful lot of people claiming to be "spiritual but not religious" here.

What, exactly, does that mean? I can understand people who aren't involved in organized religions but still believe in either a theistic or deistic god, but there are words for those people in the spectrum of beliefs already - theists and Deists intuitively enough.

People either believe in some form(s) of superior consciousness or entities or they don't. Whetther you hope or doubt, you still either believe or don't believe. I am not sure where spirituality can find room here.

So those claiming to be spiritual help me out here please - simple questions

1) Do you believe that there is any conscious entity with the power to control or guide nature in toto or in part by act of will?

2) Do you believe there is a conscious entity (or more of course) which created or guided the creation of the universe or even just humanity?

3) If yes to any of the above any details on what this or these entities are and how they operate would be very useful. If this entityu is an aggregate of all living consciousness etc as I have seen claimed, please offer some insuight into what part of us is involved and how it is aggregated.

4

[stillcool]

1. I claim to be a spiritual being..

and my answer to your two questions is no. The best way I can explain what I believe spirituality is, is this..Imagine yourself all alone in the world in a strange place. No family, no friends, no pets, no job, and no connection to the world around you. Then define who you are. It is what is left when all else is gone. I think it is the essence of the human 'being', rather than the human 'doing'. It has nothing to do with what is out there, and everything to do with what is inside.

[dmallind]

6. OK - but isn;t that more a question of psychology then?

Perhaps in coordination with neuroscience? I mean we understand what thoughts and feelings are, where they come from in the brain, how they are transmitted and so on. Is spirituality then nothing more than the subjective experience of the work of neurons and synapses?

[glowing]

2. Spirituality is having peace with oneself and serenity with the surrounding world.

A sense of being in your space and an easing of mind, heart, and body in sync. Many people shred the religious establishments because they say what you CAN'T DO, more often than they speak of what you CAN DO.

[dmallind]

9. OK but let me ask more

What is the difference between feeling that way and NOT feeling that way? How will I kow if I feel in sync? I have never experienced any feeling of being out of sync or of being uneasy in my heart (I assume you mean emotional state here) or mind. In body I am robustly healthy if far from physically fit, although i used to be, but it has never seemed in any way contingent with with my emotional or mental self. I'm relatively introspective and honest with myself about my emotional mental and physical statewithout imagining any external forces or even internal forces other than physical ones, and yet I do not feel in any way spiritual even though I feel perfectly in sync.

I certainly agree with your last statement and good for them, but I question sometimes whether those who replace religion with spirituality are in some way looking for something beyond their own physical humanity, and I sincerely want to know both how and why.

[tinrobot]

30. Have you ever seriously mediated?

Have you ever managed to turn down your thinking mind, surrender your ego, and just 'be?'

If you have, then you'll know the serene feeling that many people call 'spiritual.' It's not really a feeling that can be expressed in words. The best way I can describe it is that it's similar to that blissful state you get when you first fall in love with someone. Instead of feeling 'in love' with another person, you just feel 'love,' or you feel 'in sync' with everything around you. I'm not a very new-agey kind of guy, but it's that whole feeling 'one with the universe' thing. The feeling is quite wonderful and very powerful. If you've experienced it, you would know.

[BurtWorm]

35. I have experienced it, many times, especially in my post-adolescence

when I was searching for something to believe in. I know the feeling you're talking about.

Now that I've analyzed my beliefs about "god" and the soundness of the reasons for them, I can't find a strong enough case against this feeling being anything but epiphenomenal to my having an organic body. These feelings, wonderful as they are, result from chemical reactions and electrical impulses in my body. What I used to refer to as "spiritual" or as evidence of "spirituality," I now tend to think of--without loss of any of the sense of wonder and amazement at it--as a by-product of having (or being) a live body.

[tinrobot]

40. It is amazing, isn't it?

It's a great feeling, and it has made my life much more happy and abundant.

I find that trying to analyze it, however, just pops the bubble. Analyzing "non-thought" with thought seems rather pointless to me. All these discussions of rational scientific reasons for god are rather humorous to me, because it's like people are trying to weigh a watermelon with a protractor. You can't rationally analyze that which is fundamentally non-rational.

Disconnects arise when people try to use science to explain spirituality and conversely, spirituality to explain science. Those disconnects can create a lot of conflict. With a measure of acceptance, however, there's room for both.

Besides, I have plenty of things to think about and analyze in my normal life, so I try not to analyze my spiritual life.

[BurtWorm]

42. To me, it matters (so to speak) whether my 'reality' *is* reality or a hallucination.

It's an interesting question to me.

[tinrobot]

46. A lot of it is a hallucination.

Just study how perception works.

[BurtWorm]

47. Which comes first: the preception or the perceived?

I may be constrained in my ability to interpret and understand the perceivable by the limits of my own perception. The rule; Be skeptical of what you think you know. Or you could just sit back and enjoy the hallucination. It's a matter of taste, I suppose.

[The Traveler]

3. How the hell should I know?

A student encounters an old man, a sage, struggling to bear a heavy load of firewood up the hill. "Master," he says, "what is enlightenment like?"

The sage responds by dropping his burden. The student understands, nods, and asks, "And what do you do next?"

Wordlessly, the sage picked up his burden and continued his effort.

You want the answers to the big questions wrapped up in nice little logical packages that are consistent and complete. But in my view the questions so readily answered are trivial ... and these topics are anything but.

Check out Godel's Theorem some time ... it seems to point to fundamental limitations of formal systems of production, like algebras, that in themselves seem to point to fundamental limitations of that cognitive process we call logic. Reason is more than useful ... it's fun. (The fun is why I majored in physics and found employment as an engineer.) But it is only one way of perceiving/experiencing the world around us. The artist does something entirely different with experience than the scientist, but that makes it no less valid.

I don't have answers for ya. To paraphrase Ranier Rilke, the big questions have no sensible answers ... you have to be content to love the questions.

Trav

[dmallind]

8. One issue I have with these charming stories

And I mean that sincerely by the way - is that they take as axiomatic the idea that there IS something that could be called "enlightenment" or various other terms like "the third eye" "kundalini" and so on.

So I'm asking more for the definition of the question jnot the answer. It is impossible to seek or find enlightenment, or spirituality, without at some point realizing what it is. ideally that should be known at the start of the student's search, but if perhaps it is something that is found only after aimless searching after "something", then at least the sage who has found it should be able to define it. Even if it is with an irritatingly vague and reflexive statement about enlightment (or spirituality) merely being the feeling of searching for it. Even if true, that could be more easily said and without any woo-woo whatsoever as "the point of life is living it".

[TreasonousBastard]

12. You got it. Dontcha just love these trick questions?

[dmallind]

16. How is it a trick

I lay out both the reasons for the questions and the definitions I use quite clearly. Easy enough to say "no I definie it like this instead" if you disagree, but rather silly to imagine any subterfuge.

I don;t claim to zbarkly and if I did I would expect people to ask me for an explanation of zbarkly before they decided whether I was normal, nuts, a genius, or simply making things up for so claiming.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Because you start out asking people to define...

their "spirituality" but then limit the answers to some order of belief in deities. You even say that one must believe or disbelieve, not only without bothering to define these terms but letting us wonder just where Unitarians, Buddhists, Quakers, soft atheists, agnostics, and myriad others who just haven't given the whole thing much thought at all fit into all this.

[dmallind]

18. I do no such thing

I've seen plenty of definitions of spirituality that boil down to awe and wonder at nature for example. What I'm trying to get to is how those who are spiritual but not religious tend to view questions about religion and belief. To be honest I expected a split in between answers like "no - spirituality is nothing to do with such entities" and "yes I believe in X religious entities but not in a way described by normal religious points of view". Nothing I asked prevented either of those answers.

As for belief and not belief I admittedly assumed the word was familiar to all and generally agreed upon but to be complete I'll fix that error.

I define belief in this context as something like "holding the opinion that such an entity exists". I AM a weak atheist so I don't exclude them. Atheists do NOT believe. absence of belief is not belief in absence. Neither do honest agnostics believe. Agnosticism is a question of whether you think we can know and how, not of whether you believe. An agnostic can be an atheist or a theist. It is not a separate position on the continuum. Unitarians are a group containing both theists and atheists in that some believe in such entities and some don't. Buddhists likewise (some would quibble for example about the "conscious" part however. putting thought into it or being of any denomination you choose has nothing to do with it.

If you answer the question "do you believe any distinct and conscious entity which can control nature at will exists (a pretty good wroking definition of a god)?" it can ONLY be either yes or no. Whether you know or not is irrelevant. How you think we might know and what form you think that entity has and what it wants from us if anything is irrelevant. So is whether you think we can prove it, or should try to, and how to do that. You either believe such a being exists or not.

To deny that is to imagine a semi-belief. Exactly what would that look like or feel like? How can it be expressed? Again "gods may or may not exist" can be said accurately by any non-doctrinaire reasoner. "We can't at this point know for sure objectively" can and will be said accurately by any logical thinker. But "I may or may not believe it" can only accurately be said by those who have found a way to do something other than have a thought or not have a thought. What other question could be answered thus? It's a subjective opinion or thought. Once the question is asked and understood, it becomes a binary condition. Do you believe leprechauns exist? You can't prove it either way, but to claim that you neither believe nor lack belief is insane (again lacking belief is NOT actively believing leprechauns do not exist. If I say I am a millionaire you either believe me or you don't. You undoubtedly don't care, but you can either say "sure I'll take your word for it" (belief) or "OK prove it" (lack of belief). "No it's absolutely certain that you are not one" is a belief in the nonexistence of myself as a millionaire without evidence either way. It is a completely separate stance from not believing me. It is,. I submit, impossible to be IN BETWEEN believing and not believing.

[TreasonousBastard]

29. Oh yes you do, and you did it right here...

you claim there must be an "either/or" and there is no such requirement for this dichotomy-- except the one you yourself set up.

The proper answer to your "Do you believe in God" question is often "I don't know" and that does not necessarily translate into "No" no matter how you try to twist its shape.

(One would think "I don't care" would normally be a no, but it's still not specific enough.)

[dmallind]

34. So correct my "made up" constraint then

Explain to me how you can have a thought that is neither a beloief nor a lack of belief.

Come on - I made it up right!

If you don't know if you believe in God then you have no active belief in God by definition, or you would know that you had that belief. To imagine that those answers are different is to imagine someone who does not know that they believe in God, but actually does so. It's perfectly rational to say we don't know if Gid exists or not, but to say we don't know whetehr we believe it or not is asinine sophistry. Do you know if you believe dragons exist? Unicorns? Why is God any different?

Knowledge and belief are two different things. Not knowing about an object of belief does not stop you from either believing or not believing.

[TreasonousBastard]

48. Huh? "Belief" can be a transition, or entirely irrelevant,...

in many situations.

Simply demanding a yes or no answer is simplisitic.

[Jokerman]

4. I used to call myself "spiritual".

I don't recall ever buying into the whole "god" thing and have in fact been an atheist my entire life but there was a time when I called myself "spiritual".

There has always been a part of me that wants to believe that there is something beyond our mortal existence. Even today I can't help to think how nice it would be to believe that there will be some sort of ultimate justice for those who cause suffering and death but if I claim to believe that, I'm just being dishonest with myself.

Add to that the fear of being socially stigmatized by coming out as an atheist and I can see that at least for me, the labels "spiritual" and "agnostic" were just stepping stones on the path to admitting to myself and my friends that I don't in fact have any supernatural beliefs.

I'm not accusing anyone else who uses those labels of being dishonest, I am only speaking for myself.

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. Ummmm......

I consider myself spiritual but not religious.

What does that mean? In my case, it means that I am Christian and don't give a f*ck about preachers, televangelists, churches, various ministries, or other forms of organized religion. I don't listen to those folks, I don't participate in their activities and events and I most certainly do not support either their commercial or not for profit efforts.

I draw a distinction between personal belief and practice (spirituality) and public expression and practice of said belief in a faith community (religion). Some believers have little desire to affiliate or be identified with a larger faith community. Lots of reasons or that.

The distinction is one of practice rather than basic tenets of faith.

[cosmik debris]

7. "I'm not an alcoholic because I don't attend the meetings."

That's the way I interpret the statements that a person is a believer but not a member of organized religion, or that they are spiritual but not religious.

They seem to be trying to reconcile within themselves the fact that they believe some superstitions, but distance themselves from the ones that they think are really weird.

They always use nebulous, vague, undefined terminology to make sure you can't pin them down on why their beliefs are so much more acceptable than the others.

It is all a semantic game of tag and the disclaimer that they are "spiritual not religious" is the equivalent of shouting "NOT IT!"

[Coyote_Bandit]

10. Maybe

it is more about distancing oneself from the community rather than a few of the beliefs held in that community. And maybe that is because the believer feels that the community does not appropriately reflect or practice the faith. You assume that a faith community is an accurate reflection of the faith and its practice. Yet, in the christian community the churchs cannot even agree on what are the essential and acceptable tenets and practices of the faith. And those disputes go back to the very origins of the faith.

And maybe, just maybe, some individuals are secure enough in themselves that they just simply don't give a damn what anyone else thinks of what they believe.

I consider myself spiritual but not religious. You would define my beliefs as Christian. But I much prefer to simply call myself a believer. I am under no obligation to explain or justify my faith or the manner in which I chose to exercise and define it to anyone. What's more, I could care less whether I have anyone's approval.

I respect the beliefs of others without judgment. I do not tolerate less from them. But you apparently find it acceptable to judge the manner in which I define and exercise my faith. Welcome to my ignore list.

[cosmik debris]

11. Ouch! that hurt!

I've always feared being on your ignore list and now my nightmare has come true.

Woe is me!

There is no end to the suffering.

[Silent3]

22. Da--Br-----d, is that you?

Or are you a new member of the quickly-take-offense-and-pompously-announce-who's-been-added-to-your-ignore-list brigade?

(Name in subject line partially obscured to avoid "calling out" another member.)

[trotsky]

14. Essentially becoming a sect of one.

Well stated, cd. A way of insulating one's beliefs from any kind of earnest questioning or analysis.

[cosmik debris]

15. I had been thinking about that for a long time

And I had been composing a post on the subject. But the OP beat me to it.

My original approach was "I'm a racist, but I'm not a Klan member" just to emphasize that being outside the group does not make the ideas any more palatable.

They may try to separate themselves from the herd, but when someone says "spiritual" I hear "woo woo".

[TreasonousBastard]

13. The essence of spirituality as I see it,...

and not necessarily as anyone else would see it, is simply the admission that there might be "something else" out there.

Is there an intelligent being running the show? What does that have to do with spirituality? That's religion. It could be a mathematical formula or the mixing of colors running things.

The point is that there is something beyond ourselves-- the universe is a pretty big thing and the bizarrely self-centered thinking that we are alone and solely responsible for our own fates is ridiculous.

Spirituality is the search for whatever is out there. We probably won't find it, but we'll find much other good stuff on the way.

[laconicsax]

21. Your argument goes both ways.

The point is that there is something beyond ourselves-- the universe is a pretty big thing and the bizarrely self-centered thinking that we are alone and solely responsible for our own fates is ridiculous.

Try this:

The point is that there is nothing beyond ourselves--the universe is a pretty big thing and the bizarrely self-centered thinking that a higher intelligence that takes a controlling interest in our personal lives is ridiculous.

Seriously? Because the universe is immense, there must not just be something supernatural, but that supernatural force has specific interest in your life? That's pretty self-centered. In fact, you don't get much more self-centered than proclaiming that the universe is immense, but your life has such significance that a supernatural force takes has a direct interest in its outcome to the extent of taking responsibility for it.

[TreasonousBastard]

28. You're missing the point...

I was merely explaining how a spiritually oriented person might think, not some Grand Truth.

Never did I say that there is an entity with some special interest in our little planet, much less our species, although the possibilities remain open. There are, however, events beyond our control that affect us, and they might be by some design that doesn't even bother to acknowledge our existence.

Once again, it is the quest that is spritual-- the path, not the destination.

[laconicsax]

33. Ok, so...

How do you get from events beyond our control to those events happening for a reason that doesn't include us?

When you say that events affecting us that are beyond our control could be part of some design that doesn't even acknowledge us; what scale of event are you talking about? If you mean events on the scale of someone dying from malaria following a mosquito bite, then how do you reconcile the apparent contradiction of the death of an individual being directly caused by a force that is unaware of the individual and assigning a purpose for that death to the degree that the death was necessary? It seems to me that if the death of person (C) was part of a larger scheme (D), then D could not progress without the death of C. This would make awareness of C a necessary factor in the execution of D.

If you mean events on the scale of the formation of our solar system or a rogue meteoroid striking our planet and wiping us from existence, then how does that differ from assigning intelligence to the laws of physics?

[TreasonousBastard]

49. Any scale you want...

one model would be the Greek gods who rarely, if ever, bothered with human concerns in their scandals and petty jealousies.

Or, more in the realm of the possible, would be a fourth dimensional being who, in the normal course of its daily life is invisible to us (and we largely to them) but whose every motion causes an effect in our world.

[dmallind]

39. Well sure there is something

I don;t control my own fate with perfect freedom, entirely because of something (many things) greater than me. The earth's orbit and mass are probably the biggest things.

But the question is WHY does there have to be a conscious entity that is constraining my control of my fate. There is plenty of evidence that natural processes can and do create gravity, and atmosphere, and chemcial reactions that make up life. There is no need to imagine anything sentient to explain them.

I have absolutely no interest in claiming humanity to be the peak of all that is possible. I ferevently hope and mathematically estimate it's highly improbable that we are. Perhaps some things ahead of us are able to affect us unseen and undetected, even to have the knowledge to have set up conditions that govern our fate. There is however no evidence for this, and even if it were true no reason to imagine these beings as anything spiritual or outside normal biological and physical laws.

[TreasonousBastard]

50. There doesn't "have" to be a...

conscious entity, but the point of spirituality is the search for one-- it is the path that is important, not the destination.

(Vaguely reminiscent of the SETI project-- we know there might be something out there and we have to look for it, but there are no gurantees we'll find anything)

[juno jones]

19. I just think the universe

(for lack of a better term for something that is damn near infinite in terms of macrocosm and microcosm) is sentient.

No watchmakers, no micromanaging tyrants, but living nonetheless. It evolves because of the same priciples that govern our evolution. But I do not believe in an anthropomorphic 'creator'. Many mystics and spiritual practioners don't.

You are limiting the concept of 'spiritualism' by only looking at a rather limited view filtered thru the tenets of dogmatic religion, which really isn't the same thing at all.

At a certain point 'God' or 'Gods' just become allegory for elements of the psyche. But you have to give up 'God the Daddy' and 'God the Watchmaker' to get there.

[108blessings]

20. I assume that in your third question, you are referring to Buddhism

(using aggregate)? No, I think there has to be something apart from the sum of us all.

I think the big point here is that we need to toss out "logic." It simply is not applicable to matters of the spirit, which are not measurable by sentient terms. It transcends boundaries...

So basically, I believe it's like Hinduism talks about: the Atman (individual spark/soul) eventually merges into Brahman (Absolute Reality). But apart from individual souls merging into this Mass, there has to be more than the sum of the parts. It can be both at the same time, though!

[dmallind]

36. Partly yes, partly no

That idea comes from both new agey and very much old-agey sources and devotees. The atman/brahman thing is probably the core model for it sure, but a lot of people have taken that outside the Hindu franework into naturism and pantheism and jusr plain new age thought. Ironically it's one of the ideas of "god" or "greater entity" that is at least somewhat worth investigating without dismissing out of hand like the anthropomorphic ideas. However there remians the problem of no evidence for it and no testable or even inductively established process by which it could work.

[Meshuga]

23. For the most part I don't subscribe to 1 and 2 but I consider myself religious

And I am an active member of a religious congregation.

[Silent3]

24. "Spirituality" strikes me as a word that's been co-opted by woo...

...in much the same way "Christian" has been co-opted by fundamentalist Christians. Yes, technically speaking liberal Catholics or Episcopalians, etc., are just as much "Christian" as the zealots from your local "Bible Church", but few of the more liberal and less dogmatic Christians feel comfortable any more declaring, "I'm a Christian," and leaving in at that without further explanation, afraid of leaving the wrong impression.

I could call myself "spiritual", but only after a long explanation of just what I'd mean when I was saying that. The word can mean putting more emphasis on one's emotional life and the well-being of others than on the acquisition of material wealth. The word can mean appreciation for mystery in the truest sense of the word mystery -- admitting there's a lot we humans don't know, but without losing skepticism, without forgetting what a "null hypothesis" is, without believing that the unknown is a place where all of your supernatural hopes and fears dwell. The word can mean introspective, calm, and emotionally mature.

Too often, however, "spiritual" seems to mean dedicated to vagueness, impressed by baseless but emotionally satisfying claims while being scornful of skepticism, substituting wishful thinking for rational thinking, believing that the natural next step after stating "nobody knows for sure" is "therefore whatever I want to believe that makes me happy is just as good as anything else until someone can absolutely prove me wrong".

[108blessings]

26. What is 'woo,' pray tell? Anything beyond the five senses?

Are you aware that some metaphysicians would say that the unreal is the gross stuff of the Material World that is temporary? So woo woo stuff like the soul, energy fields (auras) are way more real than the dense vibrations of this plane.

[Silent3]

27. I'm aware of a lot of inconsistent, unverifiable, fanciful stuff...

...and people who assign themselves grandiose titles from promoting such things. "Dense vibrations of this plane"? Puhlease... you really think that's meaningful, well-defined terminology?

Let's compare accomplishments of "metaphysicians" and scientists, shall we?

[tinrobot]

41. Here's one comparison

Just speaking personally, science and all it's pills, therapies and other techniques couldn't cure my depression.

Spirituality (and metaphysicians by extension) did cure it, and yes, I did feel some sort of "dense vibrations from the plane" or whatever you want to term it.

Happiness is a very tangible and meaningful thing. I think that's a pretty good accomplishment.

[Silent3]

43. The plural of anecdote isn't data

I've suffered from depression too, didn't get much help from drugs or therapy, but did get better by fixing some of the root causes of my depression on my own. That doesn't mean "dense vibrations from the plane" came along and cured me.

It doesn't mean that happiness is something other than a neurochemical state.

The fact that our scientific knowledge doesn't make us complete, perfect masters of the universe doesn't mean that anything else we happen to accomplish when our scientific knowledge failed us is proof of, and can only be explained by, fairy dust.

At any rate, you still haven't explain wtf the garbled verbiage "dense vibrations from the plane" is supposed to mean. Dense in what way? How do you know these are vibrations and not particles? If vibrations, vibrations in what medium? At what frequency? Which plane is "the plane"? What is a "plane" in the way you're using the word?

(PS: It was the now-defunct poster 108blessings who first used the expression "dense vibrations from the plane" in this thread, and he/she used it to mean the ordinary, mundane, boringly physical, non-spiritual stuff that science deals in. You seem to be using the exact same phrase in a nearly opposite way, crediting "dense vibrations from the plane" as the spiritual thing that cured you. I think that makes my point that you're just tossing words around without a clue as to what they mean.)

[tinrobot]

45. "Dense vibrations from the plane"

I'm not sure what other people mean by it, but in my spiritual practice, chanting certain mantras creates a vibration in the body that profoundly affects it. It's similar to how music can evoke emotion, but more intense. That's what I meant.

That said, my spiritual practice is what cured my depression, the "dense vibrations" were only part of it. A lot of the cure was dispensing with negative thoughts, as well as changing the way I looked at the world. It's not fairy dust, either. For me, a spiritual practice a very practical way to achieve happiness. If I keep up my practice in the morning, then I'm happy all day. It's like exercising every day, you just make it a habit.

It may very well be a neurochemical state. If it is, I'd much rather produce my own neurochemicals though meditation than buy them from a drug company. I've seen studies where meditation actually reworks the structure of the brain - a lot the changes happen in the prefrontal cortex. That may be another scientific explanation. But again, that's just idle information, because I know that if I keep up my practice then I'm kept up and remain happy.

[dmallind]

37. what you said is pretty much woo yes

Bugger all to do with the five senses and much to do with the sixth one called "common".

[greyl]

44. Metaphysics is another word that has been co-opted by woo, unfortunately. nt

[ZombieHorde]

25. Spirituality is code for cannibalism.

If you ever get invited to a Universal Unitarian pot-luck, decline.

[tinrobot]

31. In simplest terms, spirituality is shedding the ego.

As humans, our sense of 'self' is derived from our egos. We tend to be very egoistic, self-centered and self absorbed. Spirituality and religion are ways to let go of the ego, which creates a sense of connectedness and bliss.

Religions use the notion of a 'god' to get people to see that there is something greater than their egos, thus allowing them to shed their egos. When the egos are turned down, people feel more blissful and connected.

Spirituality uses the universe or something else as the thing that's greater than the ego, but again, the results are similar - shed the ego and find bliss.

Others use meditation to drop the ego and find this connected state.

But it all boils down to ego. Let it go and you'll see.

[bananas]

32. Out of curiousity, how would you answer these questions?

1) Do you believe you are a conscious entity with the power to control or guide nature in toto or in part by act of will?

2) Do you believe you are a conscious entity which creates or guides the universe or even just humanity?

3) If yes to any of the above any details on what you are and how you operate would be very useful. If you are an aggregate of all living consciousness etc as I have seen claimed, please offer some insuight into what part of us is involved and how it is aggregated.

[dmallind]

38. Me? very directly and honestly as follows

And yes I noticed the substitution of "you".

1) No. My act of will cannot control or guide nature. My act of will may lead to an entirely mechanical act of say starting a fire which may take away the natural cold for a small time, but I cannot by will make it less cold per se. Obviously the control of nature in toto is beyond my mechanical acts let alone acts of will. It is vaguely possible although highly unlikely that other humans have or I might develop some ability to make themselves experience nature differently from its objective conditions (say to not feel the cold) but there is no feasible scenario or forseeable possibility that an act of will by a human could change natural conditions themselves.

2) I believe I am a conscious entity for a start yes. I could even go beyond the basic "cogito ergo sum" and say that even if I don't cogito due to some silly Matrix-like woo-woo, then there is certainly something there on which the cogito of whoever is doing the cogitoing is being projected so that I think I cogito. I however do not think I do anything to guide the universe or humanity more than my own tiny impact upon it, which is individual and distinct in a discrete sense from the other tiny impacts of other humans. I certainly do not create any objective reality.

3) I don't think I am an aggregate of living consciousness at all. I doubt such an aggregate exists, although again I lack the universal knowledge to say it cannot. I see no mechanism or process by which consciousnesses can combine nor do I say any evidence of any combined consciousness acting in the world as I see it. As such I lack belief, while again claiming no definitive knowledge of the absence of such a combination.

Unasked but probably implied is what I do think of these ideas then. Personally I suspect (because all evidence points to this) but cannot prove and will not try to (because there may be, or come to be, evidence of which I am unaware) that human spirituality is merely a name for the effects of normal brain chemistry upon a subset of individuals who wish to give this sensation an objective existence outside themselves to satisfy a perfectly normal psychological need for belonging, reassurance and certainty. That I lack this need is not an indication that I am better than anyone who does have it, and in fact makes me more abnormal than normal. My brain may work differently from theirs, and in part I believe this is deterministic. The brain is more plastic than was earlier thought. however I also believe psychology and nurture play a part in how we each interpret this brain functionality, so that even if I feel this ego-less sync mentioned above, I interpret it not as union with an external consciousness but as just a pleasnat emotional and mental response entirely internal and entirely subjective.