...

[Leigha]

...

Deleted post. (Posted it already on SF, so meh, no reason to post here, too) ^_^

[C C]

...

Deleted post. (Posted it already on SF, so meh, no reason to post here, too) ^_^

Well, since there's a non-functional topic still taking up space here (a post can't really be deleted after the 3 or 5 minute mark), I might as well complement it with a reply of similarly otiose status.

I guess this is the part of the article that wants to zero in on the how or why:

"The relationship between spirituality and happiness has long been a topic of interest among researchers, who generally find that faith promotes life satisfaction by binding people together around a shared or common belief and helping them develop a sense of personal meaning. "

A kind of "duh" that the majority of people do not either psychologically or purposefully feel well in social isolation. (Although a minority does thrive on it when they reject the mainstream "one size fits all" making them feel guilty and pathological for desiring stretches of solitude). So there would be at least two forms (if not more) of utility for "spirituality" (or whatever placeholder label one chooses): As a vehicle for drawing people purposefully together to garner the effects, or imparting some value of life to the monastic loner. The former being what the above is fixated on.

Obviously an "away-from-materialistic-toys" feeling of being "connected to others and the world" in a constructive way is going to yield more long-term positive benefits. In contrast to the either materialistic or immediate gratification seeking (self-) abusive and "exploitation of other people" variations like belonging to the brotherhood of violent gangs, drug cartels, guilds of thieves; the fellowship derived from the intoxicated lifestyles of wild frat-boy clubs, drug-addict dens, swinger/porn cliques; the comradeship of totalitarian parties, fascist clans, nihilistic death cults, etc.

It's more difficult to discern what the "monastic loner" is deriving from a "sublime or reverent mental orientation", since it is private -- lacking public display and social interaction. Even sequestered from the larger world, historical monks and nuns of whatever systems were half-group, not always locked in themselves. They were still part of a community just like a Bruderhof spiritual/religious combination severing ties to modern temptations.

But "spirituality" doesn't just abide in generating meaning slash "life values" via binding people through supernatural awe-generating furniture. Even if they were real but not publicly verifiable, entities like typical "gods" and lesser beings would neutrally, ultimately be concepts that had been personified. So such don't have to be paranormal. To add an alteration: "There are more things [kinds of gods and demigods] in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

If Trekkies gathered every week instead of occasionally at science-fiction conventions, they'd probably be deriving spiritual-like benefits, despite fully knowing that the Star Trek universe isn't real which their costumes and role-playing reflect.

And Meeropol below describing Radosh's defection from Marxism as being "a god that failed" for him is ironic. Due to that being very much what leftist ideology was to many of the old guard in terms of reverence and blind following (a substitute). Seems like there was an old Sidney Lumet film (Daniel, maybe? -- or not) that depicted NYC communists of that era gathered around a radio broadcast of Soviet propaganda and news, reverently eating it up like a pastor's sermon in a church. (If it was a Lumet film I'm vaguely recalling, he or any of scores of other Jewish film-makers were certainly familiar with those kinds of gatherings -- it's not like it had to be imagined minus either childhood or adult memories. If their own particular families weren't sympathetic to or outright Party members, they had neighbors/friends who were.)

"Ronald Radosh ... was raised in the bosom of the Old Left, went to communist youth camp as a child, doted on Paul Robeson ("communism, The Soviet Union and black freedom all at once"), was convinced of the Rosenbergs' innocence ... But in the mid-'70s a socialist friend told him a story suggesting that Julius Rosenberg had been a spy. "I felt a deep sense of personal betrayal," he says. "To say the Rosenbergs were guilty was to betray your family" of the Old Left. But his professional curiosity was piqued, and when the Michael Meeropols' suit against the government in 1975 resulted in disclosure of some 200,000 documents, Radosh began to doubt that the full truth would emerge from their interpretations...

He and Sol Stern, his associate before Milton, used the files for a while, but "I kicked them out," says Marshall Perlin, the Meeropols' attorney. [...] As his work progressed, Radosh says, "I was excommunicated from the left." Former friends warned him against the project, others ostracized him. And without access to the Meeropols' cross-indexed documents, he had to go to Washington for photo-copies of the FBI files. "The expense was phenomenal."

"Ronnie's a very, very strong anticommunist now," says Michael Meeropol, "part of that god-that-failed crowd." He claims that Radosh is possessed of a convert's zeal to be "more Catholic than the pope," and motivated by a desire to write a best-seller. ... Radosh, currently a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, says, "They want to make me out to be a McCarthyite right-winger. It's true I'm an anticommunist. It's a sensible thing to be--I don't apologize for that. But I'm involved with the democratic left community." LINK: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/l...29619cbe2/

[Leigha]

...

Deleted post. (Posted it already on SF, so meh, no reason to post here, too) ^_^

Well, since there's a non-functional topic still taking up space here (a post can't really be deleted after the 3 or 5 minute mark), I might as well complement it with a reply of similarly otiose status.

I really did ''laugh out loud'' reading this. 

I guess this is the part of the article that wants to zero in on the how or why:

"The relationship between spirituality and happiness has long been a topic of interest among researchers, who generally find that faith promotes life satisfaction by binding people together around a shared or common belief and helping them develop a sense of personal meaning. "

Thing is, everyone tends to define spirituality a bit differently. For some, it involves God, for others it might involve communing with nature, and gaining a sense of satisfaction from it. Being awe-struck can sometimes ''feel'' spiritual (doesn't mean it really is). I notice the article slips in the term ''faith'' which can also conjure all kinds of definitions. For me, I can easily interchange spirituality with ''faith,'' but not everyone would classify their spiritual beliefs as ''faith based.'' Oh, this is getting confusing. 

A kind of "duh" that the majority of people do not either psychologically or purposefully feel well in social isolation. (Although a minority does thrive on it when they reject the mainstream "one size fits all" making them feel guilty and pathological for desiring stretches of solitude). So there would be at least two forms (if not more) of utility for "spirituality" (or whatever placeholder label one chooses): As a vehicle for drawing people purposefully together to garner the effects, or imparting some value of life to the monastic loner. The former being what the above is fixated on.

Yea, I don't care for that terminology as it suggests that if I'm milking a cow, it can somehow be ''spiritual.'' I guess it could be, but I hesitate to start labeling ''cool'' experiences or awe-some moments as ''spiritual.'' I get a huge thrill on steep, fast roller coasters...is that spiritual? Not really.

Obviously an "away-from-materialistic-toys" feeling of being "connected to others and the world" in a constructive way is going to yield more long-term positive benefits. In contrast to the either materialistic or immediate gratification seeking (self-) abusive and "exploitation of other people" variations like belonging to the brotherhood of violent gangs, drug cartels, guilds of thieves; the fellowship derived from the intoxicated lifestyles of wild frat-boy clubs, drug-addict dens, swinger/porn cliques; the comradeship of totalitarian parties, fascist clans, nihilistic death cults, etc.

Agree, and good point. I'd say if you are hurting others or centered around yourself, it's probably not all that spiritual. Obsession with self, is just that...obsession with self. There's nothing spiritual in that, imo.

It's more difficult to discern what the "monastic loner" is deriving from a "sublime or reverent mental orientation", since it is private -- lacking public display and social interaction. Even sequestered from the larger world, historical monks and nuns of whatever systems were half-group, not always locked in themselves. They were still part of a community just like a Bruderhof spiritual/religious combination severing ties to modern temptations.

Well, there have been many studies done suggesting that meditation and prayer provide many physical and emotional benefits. There's something about being alone, that forces you to have to reflect on the dark parts of your life. Dark meaning, dysfunctional or chaotic. I don't think it's healthy to never be ''tested' by the world, though. How would we ever grow? That said, the ''seven deadly sins'' could still take hold of our mindsets, even if we're by our lonesome for months on end. 

But "spirituality" doesn't just abide in generating meaning slash "life values" via binding people through supernatural awe-generating furniture. Even if they were real but not publicly verifiable, entities like typical "gods" and lesser beings would thereby ultimately be concepts that had been personified. So such don't have to be paranormal. To add an alteration: There are more things [kinds of gods and demigods] in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

If Trekkies gathered every week instead of occasionally at science-fiction conventions, they'd probably be deriving spiritual-like benefits, despite fully knowing that the Star Trek universe isn't real which their costumes and role-playing reflect.

lol Probably more of that ''cool effect'' I'm speaking of above, lest we start labeling every activity, as a spiritual one.

And Meeropol below describing Radosh's defection from Marxism as being "a god that failed" for him is ironic. Due to that being very much what leftist ideology was to many of the old guard in terms of reverence and blind following (a substitute). Seems like there was an old Sidney Lumet film (Daniel, maybe? -- or not) that depicted NYC communists of that era gathered around a radio broadcast of Soviet propaganda and news, reverently eating it up like a pastor's sermon in a church. (If it was a Lumet film I'm vaguely recalling, he or any of scores of other Jewish film-makers were certainly familiar with those kinds of gatherings -- it's not like it had to be imagined minus either childhood or adult memories. If their own particular families weren't sympathetic to or outright Party members, they had neighbors/friends who were.)  

"Ronald Radosh ... was raised in the bosom of the Old Left, went to communist youth camp as a child, doted on Paul Robeson ("communism, The Soviet Union and black freedom all at once"), was convinced of the Rosenbergs' innocence ... But in the mid-'70s a socialist friend told him a story suggesting that Julius Rosenberg had been a spy. "I felt a deep sense of personal betrayal," he says. "To say the Rosenbergs were guilty was to betray your family" of the Old Left. But his professional curiosity was piqued, and when the Michael Meeropols' suit against the government in 1975 resulted in disclosure of some 200,000 documents, Radosh began to doubt that the full truth would emerge from their interpretations.

He and Sol Stern, his associate before Milton, used the files for a while, but "I kicked them out," says Marshall Perlin, the Meeropols' attorney. [...] As his work progressed, Radosh says, "I was excommunicated from the left." Former friends warned him against the project, others ostracized him. And without access to the Meeropols' cross-indexed documents, he had to go to Washington for photo-copies of the FBI files. "The expense was phenomenal."

"Ronnie's a very, very strong anticommunist now," says Michael Meeropol, "part of that god-that-failed crowd." He claims that Radosh is possessed of a convert's zeal to be "more Catholic than the pope," and motivated by a desire to write a best-seller. ... Radosh, currently a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, says, "They want to make me out to be a McCarthyite right-winger. It's true I'm an anticommunist. It's a sensible thing to be--I don't apologize for that. But I'm involved with the democratic left community." LINK: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/l...29619cbe2/

Radosh, a former Marxist, eh? I'd like to read his memoirs, I imagine they're fascinating. Thanks, CC!

I recall a recent thread about transcendence, and it caused a bit of a squabble. Hmm.

[Magical Realist]

Yea, I don't care for that terminology as it suggests that if I'm milking a cow, it can somehow be ''spiritual.'' I guess it could be, but I hesitate to start labeling ''cool'' experiences or awe-some moments as ''spiritual.'' I get a huge thrill on steep, fast roller coasters...is that spiritual? Not really.el

With Zen spirituality there is an ideal state of finding even in everyday routines a spiritual and enlightened experience. I suppose such could even be extended to various christian mysticisms and sufism of the Rumi variety, this notion that we really are immersed all the time in a revelatory experience of Eternal Being. As the old zen saying goes, "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." Poetry does this for me, imparting a transcendental sense to the common and mundane happenstance of our lives, especially the Japanese haiku masters. Here's one from Basho:

"Black cloudbank broken

scatters in the

night ... Now see

Moon-lighted mountains!"

[Leigha]

I see your point, MR. When I explored Zen Buddhism a few years ago after leaving faith, it was interesting to learn that the path we're on itself... is Zen. In any religion, spiritual belief system or philosophy, many believe that there is an end game in sight, instead of just cherishing each day, seeking to be more at peace in the everyday struggles and joys. Good insight.

[C C]

Yea, I don't care for that terminology as it suggests that if I'm milking a cow, it can somehow be ''spiritual.'' I guess it could be, but I hesitate to start labeling ''cool'' experiences or awe-some moments as ''spiritual.'' I get a huge thrill on steep, fast roller coasters...is that spiritual? Not really.el

With Zen spirituality there is an ideal state of finding even in everyday routines a spiritual and enlightened experience. I suppose such could even be extended to various christian mysticisms and sufism of the Rumi variety, this notion that we really are immersed all the time in a revelatory experience of Eternal Being. As the old zen saying goes, "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." Poetry does this for me, imparting a transcendental sense to the common and mundane happenstance of our lives, especially the Japanese haiku masters. Here's one from Basho:

"Black cloudbank broken

scatters in the

night ... Now see

Moon-lighted mountains!"

David Darling, from Zen Physics: Zen is . . . difficult to talk about. So alien, indeed, is Zen to the analytical Western mind that it is perhaps easier to say what it is not. Zen is not a faith because it doesn’t urge the acceptance of any form of dogma, creed, or object of worship. Nor is it antireligious or atheistic; it simply makes no comment on the matter. Zen is not a philosophy or even, to the Western mind, a form of mysticism. As we normally understand it, mysticism starts with a separation of subject and object and has as its goal the unification or reconciliation of this antithesis. But Zen does not teach absorption, identification, or union of any kind because all of these labels are derived ultimately from a dualistic conception of life. If a label is needed that best approximates to the spirit of Zen then “dynamic intuition” is perhaps as close as we can come.

There is a saying in Zen: “The instant you speak about a thing you miss the mark.” So, presumably, this saying has also missed the mark — and this one, too. Our endless analysis can lead us into all sorts of difficulties. But how can we break free of it? Living in a world of words and concepts and inherited beliefs, says Zen, we have lost the power to grasp reality directly. Our minds are permeated with notions of cause and effect, subject and object, being and nonbeing, life and death. Inevitably this leads to conflict and a feeling of personal detachment and alienation from the world. Zen’s whole emphasis is on the experience of reality as it is, rather than the solution of problems that, in the end, arise merely from our mistaken beliefs.

Because it eschews the use of the intellect, Zen can appear nihilistic (which it is not) and elusive (which it is). Certainly, it would be hard to conceive of a system that stood in greater contrast with the logical, symbol-based formulations of contemporary science. More than any other product of the Oriental mind, Zen is convinced that no language or symbolic mapping of the world can come close to expressing the ultimate truth. As one of its famous exponents, Master Tokusan said: “All our understanding of the abstractions of philosophy is like a single hair in the vastness of space.”

Zen claims no thought system of its own. Yet it is undeniably Buddhist in origin and essence. And so before trying to appreciate its final flowering, it is worthwhile digging down to examine Zen’s roots — roots which are set firmly in Indian soil, in the fertile ground of Mahayana Buddhism.

The Indian mind was, and is, different in character from the Chinese or Japanese. It is more expansive, more austerely intellectual, less concerned with practical, everyday affairs, and more inclined to complex exposition and exploration of ideas...

- - -

Sounds a bit like achieving the state of a baby or young toddler again, before acquiring language, conditioning/memory, and culturally acquired basic concepts for understanding "what's going on". Although that's not quite it, since at even that age the brain seems to have some innate built-in cognitive or interpretation filters. You can see from their eye movements and response to sounds that they're already interpreting phenomenal properties as objects and trying to project primitive rational order into what should really be a constant, unbounded "Altered States" trip if minus that box of intellectual activity being applied. Heck, just the bodily response sensations of pain and pleasure is conditioning infants from the start to regard the manifestations as a settled world/body relationship.

[Leigha]

I've always viewed spirituality and faith beliefs as subjective. We say we understand and agree with that premise, but then when we post our own viewpoints, we're told that we're wrong to think that. No, that is just ''my'' view, but I can also take in another view without surrendering my own. I think it's important to not do this to each other, in general. (online or offline)

[Seattle]

I'm not sure exactly what the topic here is, so I hope I'm not off-topic, but I think I get the general ideas being mentioned.

My view is that much that is put under the heading of "spiritualism" has nothing to do with anything supernatural or outside of reality or nature or God.

Sometimes people start out believing in God. It's almost always combined with some religion. Some stick with that. Others come to feel that it's all either not knowable or just not as has been presented and lose their "faith".

That's all that happens to some. For others they want something to replace a void so this is where "spiritualism" usually comes in. Many/most of this group doesn't really now believe in ghosts or even ESP necessarily. They just maybe like the feeling that they got in church, the general atmosphere while contemplating quietly under the high ceilings and while being surrounded by stained glass.

There's something "ethereal" about all that. Now they get away from the man made cities, get out in nature and feel some of that same feeling that they had in church and they think of that as "spiritual".

Man is of this world and it's understandable that when we get "back" in nature there is a certain refreshing and sometimes awe inspiring feeling. It's our "home" and we've been away too long. We look up and see the Milky Way, something that you don't see from the lighted cities. It's beautiful.

It's actually just a feeling of coming "home" for man. There are no "spirits" involved. It's not "supernatural" it's very "natural".

That's my take on "spiritualism". I think that it usually has nothing to do with spiritualism.

[Leigha]

Not sure if you've shared this on SF or not Seattle (and maybe I've missed it or forgot), but have you always identified as an atheist? Or, did you go through a 'deconversion'' whereby you left a particular religion, or faith?

I find people's opinions about spirituality, religion and faith to be really intriguing, especially if they differ from mine, as it helps me understand their worldview.

Most of my friends are atheists, a few have ''deconverted'' from Christianity, but the others have been atheists their entire lives.

[C C]

I've always viewed spirituality and faith beliefs as subjective. We say we understand and agree with that premise, but then when we post our own viewpoints, we're told that we're wrong to think that. No, that is just ''my'' view, but I can also take in another view without surrendering my own. I think it's important to not do this to each other, in general. (online or offline)

A paradox. Both "religion" and "spirituality" are non-specific, so as such broad classifications they should entail receptivity to exploring the whole range of what's in their memberships. But once you get around to saying "I am this", then another same "I am this" or possibly even ex-"I am this" will start issuing ritual and doctrinal correctness.

Whatever it is, spirituality seems to often(?) be serving today as a concept for something that's prior in rank to a systemization of practices and thought orientations for a group of people (i.e., the latter transiting such from personal/subjective territory to public, objective, or global circumstances).

Peter van der Veer contends that spirituality, along with secularism, was originally introduced as an alternative to organized practices and dogma. Historically, there was no term like "religion" until the Roman Empire derived a need for that generalization; and similarly centuries later the West seems to also be responsible, via the suffixes, for adapting "spirit" or whatever its multi-language equivalents are to sounding like yet another umbrella category for subsuming both personal experiences/views and potentially various inter-subjective schools of beliefs and philosophies.    

https://www.mpg.de/6289438/spirituality_globalisation

Spirituality is not what it once was – that much is certain, according to anthropologist Peter van der Veer. Working at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity in Göttingen, he has examined the significance of the spiritual and its transformation processes [...] However, many of the modern trends contradict the original idea of spirituality. ... Peter van der Veer doubts whether such [current] events in fact have anything to do with the original ideas of spirituality: "The critical elements, like those to be found in the spiritual ideas at the beginning of the 20th century, are missing."

For Peter van der Veer, spirituality, along with other secular ideas of nation, equality, the middle class, democracy and justice, is one of the core elements in the history of modernity, which were directed against the traditional social systems and moral concepts. "The spiritual and secular arose at the same time in the 19th century as two related alternatives to institutionalised religion in the Euro-American modern age", is one of the Holland-born researcher’s core theories. With this, he also rejects the commonly held view that the cradle of spirituality lies in India, in the realm of modern myths. "There isn’t even a word for spirituality in Sanskrit", he adds.

Nor was there any mention of Hinduism, Taoism or Confucianism in Asia prior to the encounter with Western imperialism. They only changed to an "-ism" as a result of the intellectual interaction with the West. Van der Veer is convinced that this flourishing spiritual exchange between East and West is a key element in the development of modernity in general and its spirituality in particular. "For me, it is part of a process that I call interactional history", explains the Director at the Max Planck Institute in Göttingen.