What is the Significance of 'Spirituality' in Understanding the Evolution of Human Consciousness?
I am aware that the question which I raise may have been explored in many threads about religious experience and the consideration of metaphysics. I hope that I am not going to be merely repetitive and I am seeking to look at the nature of inner experience and its value. This involves the evolution of mythical and religious experience. It draws upon an inheritance of symbolic aspects of experience, which may seem at odds with science.
Part of my own quandary is about epistemology and the value or significance of inner experience. I am asking about the nature of intuition and reason and such approaches to understanding? What is the significance of the symbolic approach, mythic understanding and how are these bound up with the idea of consciousness and its emergence in the historical development of human consciousness? What is human 'consciousness' if it exists and consciousness as qualia? What does 'consciousness' represent in an understanding and how is this based on the seat of consciousness as a basis for understanding the nature of reality?
Spirituality can be regarded as fantasy or ad about the innermost aspects of what it means to be human. In addition, it may involve questions about 'ultimate reality' and 'truth-. So, I am asking about the importance and validity of spiritual understanding, as in the validity of inner 'reality' as part of a greater epistemology and metaphysical perspective . Can subjective experience of inner 'truth' be reduced to the psychological dimension or is that dimension a part of a more complex system of understanding? This also involves the question of what is the significance of human consciousness in evolutionary processes?
Part of my own quandary is about epistemology and the value or significance of inner experience. I am asking about the nature of intuition and reason and such approaches to understanding? What is the significance of the symbolic approach, mythic understanding and how are these bound up with the idea of consciousness and its emergence in the historical development of human consciousness? What is human 'consciousness' if it exists and consciousness as qualia? What does 'consciousness' represent in an understanding and how is this based on the seat of consciousness as a basis for understanding the nature of reality?
Spirituality can be regarded as fantasy or ad about the innermost aspects of what it means to be human. In addition, it may involve questions about 'ultimate reality' and 'truth-. So, I am asking about the importance and validity of spiritual understanding, as in the validity of inner 'reality' as part of a greater epistemology and metaphysical perspective . Can subjective experience of inner 'truth' be reduced to the psychological dimension or is that dimension a part of a more complex system of understanding? This also involves the question of what is the significance of human consciousness in evolutionary processes?
Comments (91)
Meanwhile, if you ask me, all human understanding is coming-to-understand the mind of God -> the "evolution" of consciousness.
Also, seems to me that science must be silent about values. Humans are not silent about values. Hence any proper anthropology must include a value-laden aspect; lastly, it seems difficult to extract values from spirituality.
The juxtaposition of the subjective and objective seems complex in my understanding of philosophy. The idea of the mind of 'God' may involve questions about physics and metaphysics, especially the idea of some spiritual 'being'or'force, imminent or outside of 'nature-.
From my perspective, that is where the idea of 'God' becomes so tricky, especially whether 'God' is imminent or transcendent.
The inner aspects human experience are complex and human values is central to this, especially in the evolution of religion. Here, religion may be seen as the outer expression of human experiences which are bound up with values, especially ethical values.
Agree.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Agree.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Not sure that I see the problem; can you further articulate the problem here?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Outer and inner, no?
I guess that part of my philosophy problem.is about the connection between the outer and inner aspects of human understanding. I may be involving an unnecessary diversion between inner and outer aspects. I have been aware of this issue for some time, but part of this seems to come down to the 'dimensions'of human experience. So much hangs on the idea,of what constitutes 'reality'. It is extremely complex, but there may be a bias towards philosophy of realism in the context of scientific understanding.
I think that NotAristotle has touched the very core of the question: the deep bond and mix between objectivity and subjectivity.
The betrayal I have talked about is when we deal with the question in analytical ways. An analytical approach means talking about spirituality with a mind, a language, that looks for objectivity, schemes, structures. This is the perfect way to talk about non-spirituality. It is similar to talking about music without listening, without experiencing it. This example actually doesn’t work so much, because music, despite being a very subjective experience, is very compatible with objective analytical talking. I think that spirituality, in this context, goes further: it is not just a subjective experience that can be analyzed with objective structures; more than that, it is radical criticism of every objectification, every analysis. You can describe a melody while still keeping in mind your memory of its acoustic effect produced last time you listened to it. Something similar can be done with spirituality, but I think that, in the case of spirituality, the risk of derailing towards a profound oblivion of the original ongoing experience is much more radical. In other words, I think that subjectivity and objectivity can have a dialogue between each other, but they are also somehow enemies to each other: objectivity has some tendency to drown subjectivity and subjectivity doesn’t like this. The history of religions and spiritualities is a history of conflicts to defend and protect subjectivity from the invasion of objectivity. Analyzing spirituality is a job that needs to be done, but, according to what I said, it needs extreme carefulness, it needs some degree of mistrust towards analysis.
Obviously, subjectivity, on the other side, is highly exposed to ambiguity and even dishonesty, that’s why it needs a dialogue with analysis, but it’s like building a dialogue between two people that a moment earlier have been fighting violently with each other. Both of them have wounds now, they are vulnerable and need attention, patience and respect. Diving too confidently into analysis means repeating again a history of oppression against the extreme delicacy and vulnerability of spirituality.
I think that a good way to deal with this question is by acknowledging, since the very beginning, our awareness and even our intention of keeping spirituality, subjectivity, as an interlocutor that sits at our same table of discussion, rather than as an absent person that we talk about; acknowledging that pure and clean analysis, actually, does not exist, we are always conditioned by our subjectivity, even when we are apparently strictly analytical. I think that, instead of trying to be more and more analytical to avoid confusion and ambiguity, we should instead aknowledge that we are always conditioned by our subjectivity and give it space so that it has its talk, its voice, its free expression.
I do wonder about the issue of being 'analytical'in this area of understanding philosophy and the psychological nature of experience. The conditioned aspects of experiences may be important markers here. Acknowledging the psychological basis of experience and belief may be a starting point. It may come down to being able to separate the various components of belief, in order to understand ideas in fuller depth. This may be where 'spirituality'becones important, in merging psychology and philosophy. Human meaning comes into this complex area of understanding too.
I think that, from a psychological perspective, the attitude of wanting to understand, to analyze, to define, to build clear structures, can be accused of being like walls that we try to build to hide our vulnerability, our frustration for being humans full of imperfections, confusion and competition.
A humble attitude could be conceiving understanding and analyzing not as tools to reach strong conclusions, but as games, which we acknoledge that we practice just because we like to play, we need to play, because playing is a psychological need of us.
Once we clarify this, I think that discussions about consciousness become automatically better. Consciousness will always defeat and even ridiculize attempts to understand it because this concept is strongly connected with the exclusive experience of consciousness that each of us has about our own experience of being conscious of our own thinking, our own being ourselves. This cannot be understood by definition, because “understanding” means translating something into shared concepts, while instead consciousness is intimately connected to a side of experience that is exclusive to each of us. “Exclusive” means exactly “not shared, not shareable” and, as such, there cannot be words to express it, because words are based on sharing. This impossibility happens when we want to understand consciousness, but understanding is not the only thing we can do with consciousness and with words. We can share our consciousness by doing things instead of talking about them. This way consciousness becomes instantly shared. If we conceive “understanding” as a game or a music that we like to play, rather than something serious and strict, then understanding spirituality becomes instantly possible, we start immediately touching it, while previously it was like something continuously escaping from our efforts to understand.
The concept of 'understanding' is extremely important because it goes into the inner nature of ideas. It even goes into the territory of 'insight', which is where spirituality and philosophy come together. I am sure that this may be dismissed at times in philosophy but that may be a ''hollow' philosophy, similar to the notion of rhetoric. It is detached from life and living experience. Here, it may be more about rejection or acceptance of 'spirit'as metaphysics, but about the depths of human experience.
:up: :100:
Quoting Angelo Cannata
:up:
Receiving what is there, gazing upon in a receptive way, letting what is present show itself as it is. Not an aggressive -looking at- but a more relaxed sort of noticing. An that, an analogy for understanding versus analyzing.
I don't think "intuition and reason" are "approaches" but rather are presupposed by "understanding".
Their "significance" is linguistic, or discursive. (See E. Cassirer or G. Lakoff.)
From an evolutionary perspective, in a nutshell: (non/human) "consciousness" seems to function as arousal, alarm and/or self-awareness.
"Understanding" – that "the nature of reality" is unconscious – is presupposed (i.e. embodied) by "consciousness".
Yes, or hallucinatory. :sparkle:
.
I tend to agree but for different reasons from the ones you give. From your 2020 thread How important are Fantasies? ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/515011
At least that seems to be the framing. What does this add? For me it just reminds me that we get stuck in conventional dualistic thinking and there may be other ways out.
This video gives an explanation of our way out.
Most of us have spent our lives with the Sumerian/Biblical story of being made of mud, and God as external, and we are subject to this God and Satan. The quantum understanding is more spiritual and does not separate us from what is and what will be. A human being is energy that has quantum entanglement with the universe.
Quoting Athena
Like atomism: we and the universe are fundamentally the same 'atoms swirling in the void'. Spinozism too: natura naturata (modes) are ontologically inseparable from natura naturans (substance). :fire:
Can you expand on this and offer up some kind of example (hypothetical if necesary).
Thanks :)
It is the story of the development the symbolic dimensions and this underlies myth and religious perspectives. Also, some of the ancient thinkers had very sophisticated understanding, even though a lot of it is not compatible with some facts of science. Religious thinking is related to this but spirituality is wider. I read Marcus Aurelius's writing recently and even though he talks of the 'gods' his understanding seems to be more of an appreciation of the symbolic nature of inner thinking more than the literalism of Abrahamic religions.
Like a ghost for example is symbolic for someone who is so mentally absorbed by some trauma that they wither away. It's why Ghosts require an offering of the body via blood to partake in the world of the living... it's like when someone is so possessed it takes great hunger pains to momentarily distract them from their grief, to perhaps eat.
Classic Example, the wailing banshee... is the ghost of a mother who lost her baby.
I have often wondered about what ghosts represent? My own reading has included ideas in theosophy, where I came across the view that ghosts are related to disturbances in the energy fields, especially from those who have had very traumatic deaths. What is interesting about ghosts is that they appear to be more than personal memories of those who knew them.
That means that even if they are symbolic they have some existence which is objective. Some people may be more 'sensitive' in picking up the ghost 'energies', but such experiences are not simply 'delusions'
I am influenced by Jung's understanding of metaphysics. It combines a Kantian understanding of the limits of epistemology with ideas from Eastern thining of the nature of consciousness.
One aspect of myth which Jung explores is the 'experiences' of seeing UFOs, in his book 'Flying Saucers'. His viewpoint is opposite to that of van Daniken, who believed that such experiences suggested extraterrestrial intelligence. He argued that it represented a form of mythology, different from belief in the gods and angels, corresponding with twentieth century thinking.
Sounds like Schopenhauer's philosophy.
What kind of examples can you give that might highlight what you are hoping for and what would a possible solution look like?
I have thought about your question of what I am aiming for in the thread and think that it is more about the future of consciousness. Human consciousness and culture involved a spiritual dimension and, after the developments of religions, science and philosophy I am wondering if spirituality will be significant in the future of consciousness. Is consciousness still evolving and to what extent is this bound up with development of the inner life? At this juncture in history there is so much to fear and is as if the gods have led humanity on the brink of despair and self-destruction. But, do we have the spiritual resources or imagination and potential consciousness to save ourselves, individual and collectively?
It will as long as we are human. Spirituality emcompasses secular activities too, like in dance or music. Art is a very significant part of what it is to be a human being. I cannot see any way in which humanity exists without such spirituality.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Broadening he cognitive horizons of all individuals so quickly will result in an expansion of fears.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Individually? I have. I see more human freedom than ever before, perhaps it is freedom that kills people's spirituality more than anything. If there is no need to seek relief beyond the more mundane aspects of existence then people's capacity for art and culture may atrophy for a while.
The lack of spirituality is confined to religions and atheists, who oppose spirituality. There are people around the world who maintain their spiritual connection with the sun and the earth. I think it is unfortunate that most people do not recognize our spiritual relationship with the cosmos, and they do not respect spiritual people.
"But, do we have the spiritual resources or imagination and potential consciousness to save ourselves? Yes, but we can't connect with it with your mind. The connection is made with the heart.
The division between the secular and 'spirituality' is complex. Numinousity may involves the arts rather than what is perceived as 'religious experience'. Art may be the way in which the numinous is often expressed and experienced.
The issue of 'freedom' may be about the consciousness of 'freedom' conceptually.Recently, I read ' Freedom Evolves'; by Daniel Dennett. The idea of free choice may be bound up with the emergence of human consciousness. I was a little confused though by his thinking as he is associated with the idea of consciousness as an 'illusion'
I am inclined to think that the evolution of ''consciousness' is about the experience of reflection as a basis for the development of consciousness on an 'inner' level.
Yes, I agree that there can be a lack of understanding of 'spirituality' amongst both religious people and atheists. The ancient thinkers, including Plato and Plotinus may have understood the value of inner experience, including spirituality, as a basis for human meaning and understanding.
It may also involve 'feeling', which may be a little different from the perspective of 'reason' and cognitive processes in the brain. Philosophy may come with the side-effect of 'overthinking' and some resultant imbalance of understanding.
Sounds a little tangled. Can you pick one thread so there is something to get ohld of in amongst this. It is a very complex area with many nebulous concepts. Maybe start by substantiating what division there is between the secular and the spiritual? Expanding form Eliade maybe?
I was just referring to plain old freedom - to do as one wishes.
I am not sure that the issues which I raise can be pinned down to one thread. It involves so much thinking about 'reality' and the questions arising in the inner life. There is also the issue of freedom and individualism. Spirituality may involve both an individual quest or be about a basis for understanding connectivity and moral responsibility. The two aspects may be juxtaposed or 'spirituality' my involve the balance between inner and outer aspects of living. Spirituality may be questionable when it is about one's own self alone, as if one is trying to rocket into 'heaven' on an individual quest.
It does seem likely that religious believers may be devoid of spirituality, just as similar to atheists. This was the area of criticism of the Pharisees which Jesus identified. The inner quest for truth may be the quest of Socrates, Jesus, the Buddha, Nietzsche's Zarathustra and many others who sought the idea of 'truth within' oneself as an essential starting point for understanding and living.
I don't know how much good can come out of looking for the "truth within" until we have lived long enough to know much of anything. I think until recently, all people turned to their elders to know about life.
An inner quest for truth would be a mental thing. I have read that the benefits of spirituality depend on the heart, not the thought. So, if a person prays for something from the position of not having that thing and being needy, this person is creating the neediness, not the fulfillment of the need. To fulfill the need, one must come from the position of gratefulness. Being grateful is a heart thing that manifests the fulfillment of what is desired. This is a more interactive relationship with the universe than modern Western thinking, which begins with separation from the spirit, God, and forces.
To be spiritual is to understand that we are co-creators with the universe. Googling the "Core principles for co-creation" will result in a fuller explanation.
The idea of the 'truth within' may be problematic if followed through for its own sake. The idea of being 'co-creators with the universe' may enable a connection between the inner and outer aspects of evolution and the evolution of consciousness. Even the separation between inner and outer may be a problem if taken too concretely. Spirituality is a complex interface of human existence, consciousness and understanding, of which religious thinking is a mere shadow of possibilities.
One aspect which I wonder about is whether suffering may be a pathway to greater consciousness or awareness. Of course, suffering can lead people to break down but if worked with may lead to greater understanding and insight. That is because suffering may lead a person to deeper searching than they would have pursued otherwise. That may seem a bit theoretical and I am not saying that it always does, but I have often found those who have been through harsh experiences have quality understanding or wisdom.
Such things are not really of much use and most people woudl not go there willingly; nor woudl I recommend doing so.
I think our cultural biases are interfering with a different understanding of our spirituality? We consider the assumed spirituality of others to be primitive and lacking in the correct knowledge of our material existence.
There is no separation between ourselves and spirit. If we are negative, that is what we create in our lives. If we are positive, that is what we create in our lives. If we destroy ecosystems, we pay the consequences, and a god is not going to save us from ourselves, no matter how much we pray. The great apes, buffalo, and elephants have as much right to this planet as we do, and how do our hearts feel about this? We are part of the creation, not separate from it.
A hidden argument, is to accuse people of thinking they are God if they do not believe in a separate god.
I am not suggesting that one should seek suffering but it comes to so many. Throughout the world there is so much suffering and it may lead to some raised consciousness. But, I do say 'may', because it may have detrimental effects. Also, the awareness of those who are not suffering themselves is a challenge, in terms of responsibility and the development of compassion for others.
Yes, there is the danger of cultural bias as a form of chauvinism. Negatively is a problem too because it is hard to keep positive in certain circumstances. It may come down to the idea of, 'As you sow, so shall you reap' but the negative side of this is to 'blame' those in the worst circumstances, when cause and effect is not straightforward as punishment, or in the sense of divine providence.
That is perfect, and I spent a couple of years lost in Hades, so I know trying to force positive thoughts can make matters worse.
Looking for information for your thread led me to finding an explanation that the spirit isn't about thinking, it is about feeling. Getting a good result is kind of like going to sleep. We can not force ourselves to sleep. We have to surrender to sleep. Lying to ourselves with positive thoughts, trying to force a different future, is like trying to force ourselves to sleep. However, conjuring up in ourselves a feeling of appreciation is like surrendering to sleep. If we appreciate what we have, it opens the door to having more. Feeling appreciation for what we have and what we want puts us in harmony with that reality on an energy level.
Because I am focusing on appreciation, I am happy, and that happiness does not depend on having what I want. In the past, I thought I couldn't be happy until I got what I wanted. That does not work. Also, I have found that doing things for others seems to make me happy. Self-help magazines say that it is true.
It kind of goes together, feeling appreciation and feeling appreciated. I think I am getting better at creating a feel-good reality for myself, and because I am happy now, I am not desperate to have something that makes me happy. But I am not going to lie to myself. If I were homeless, I am quite sure I would not be a happy camper. What is happening right now has some of us fearful. That makes me appreciate what I have.
As a starting point it would be worthwhile outlining what is meant by 'spirituality' as concisely as possible, as well as how so-called non-secular experiences of spirituality may differ from secular ones and how this can in any way be useful in looking at the sociological and biological evolution of humanity.
I will keep an eye on this thread in the meantime though. Hope it goes well for you.
The problem is this is based on a relative non-fixed "idea" versus a solid, absolute entity (a "god") and so is inevitably less reliable (ie. "effective") as far as mental homeostasis and the resulting peace and purpose of actual theistic religion. I've found many people who are "spiritual" without believing in any sort of higher power (theism) are usually ticking time bombs as far as implosion of self-grandeur and.delusion when rubber meets the road. A false mental sanctuary that often leads not to resolution and acceptance of issues and the ills in this world and one's life but repression of them. Which is never good. No, not for very long. For those who believe in neither and simply seek an "end result" analysis as to which is more "effective" as far as observable and measurable purpose.
At least, that's how it is for most people I've come across and especially observed for a given period who proclaim fellowship in such. And I'm a staunch theist, just for context.
I came to the forum this morning with something I want to say, and replying to what you said with my thought might work.
My thought begins with looking at unique pictures on things made of wood. The crafter used a laser beam to burn pieces of a tree into the wood objects he made. The pictures were obviously fractals made by nature.
Looking at the fractals on the object that I bought caused me to recall when I was young and did not have my own identity, but tried to be pleasing to everyone. So how I dressed and behaved would depend on what I thought others wanted of me. And here I am, in this forum questioning, who I am, how do I want to be remembered, if I have life after death, what do I want that life to be like? Looking at the fractal pictures made by nature, I see each version of me is a little different from all the others, but all being one fractal.
For me, that is a spiritual notion of who I am and where I belong. I am energy and the same, but not the same, because nature is fractals.
I think that is different from believing we are one and only one person with traits that are recognizable by everyone, and there is no other reality. We are either good or we are evil, and our justice system is just (?).
I hope you read my reply to @I like sushi because I think my thinking and yours is more like mirror reflections than opposing thoughts. I wish I knew the technology for putting a picture of the fractals into a post. Sometimes art and poetry express meaning, but not all observers can see it. Even for religious people, our thinking can be very materialistic and restricted, rather than spiritual and fractally aware.
That is looking like a really weird thought, which makes me think of Carl Young, a psychologist who allowed himself to experience the dark side of our psyche. He experienced what those declared insane experience. He is best known for making us aware of universal mythology symbolism.
Spirituality in the context of Religious Studies and Philosophy are fairly distinct. In religious studies it does cover secular and non-secular variants.
Religious definition deals with conscious connection to God, Reality, or more generally The Divine. The Buddhist tradition pivots more toward Reality with a capital R than The Divine.
Philosophical definitions vary, but usually refer to some meaning beyond individual experience that focuses on the larger picture--more anthropological in nature.
My criticism toward the OP being we can only talk about something complex constructively by picking and choosing where and how to explicate what it is we wish think and wish to express. Only from such points can a constructive discussion flow. Otherwise we are just spilling water on the floor rather than using it to turn a wheel and get some traction.
I have only read the thread a little in the last few days because I have become unwell. I think that I may have another chest infection. However, you mentioned Carl Jung's idea of the shadow. His book, 'Answer to Job' is significant because it looks at suffering and potential for war. It is more relevant than when he wrote it a year ago. It is involves greater understanding of potential destruction. Confronting the shadow is a spiritual quest which is hard work and definitely far more than 'chocolate box' pictures of spirituality.
So what do you make of The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by André Comte-Sponville or nontheistic religions such as Advaita Vedantism, Jainism, (early) Buddhism, (early) Daoism ...?
Quoting Athena
:up: :up:
Quoting Jack Cummins
What "division"?
Quoting Jack Cummins
à la "advaita vedanta" (nonduality) ... expansion of self, higher bandwidth, hivemind (human-AI hybrid) ... "atman = brahman" :fire:
As long as we're mortal, or fear death, I suspect we will have 'the spiritual need' (re: ... belonging to something greater than oneself).
What does reality with a capital R mean? I could be wrong, but I think you are being culturally biased.
Maybe there is no voiding that bias if we play by the rules of philosophy, which are about thinking, not about personal spiritual experience. Religion requires a myth, and spirituality does not. Spirituality is a completely different connection with the universe.
I do not know enough of any of those things to comment on them. I know my spiritual experience, and I am working on understanding quantum physics so I can better judge what is or is not possible.
I am far from having a good understanding of Carl Jung, but I gather he thought we must unite our opposites if we are going to have peace. I learned of him because of Joseph Campbell, the man who studied all the mythology he found. Snakes and trees and things like these come up in myths around the world. They are symbols with a shared meaning around the world. Joseph Campbell said God spoke to everyone. Their stories may be different because their environments were different, but primitive humans shared much in common. This fact is partly responsible for Christianity's success in converting people. As the Christians spread, they tweaked the pagan stories so the common solstice celebrations had a Christian meaning, and like it or not, everyone became a Christian. But we may want to go back and look at the shared spiritual beliefs.
No, I was being techincal:
Quoting I like sushi
Here is a snippet of the kind of things 'spirituality' covers:
Quoting Athena
Looking at it as 'The Universe/Totality' rather than 'A Deity' (in terms of some Buddhist views).
As you can probably tell, this is not a subject matter I pass over in a trivial manner. I have actually but a fair bit of study into this from various different perspectives. It is a very tricky topci to discuss due to the nature of the subjective feelings and experiences involved. I am more interested in objective uses.
Spirituality, just like Religion, means different thigns to different people. If we are all using different meanings without knowing it, then the chances of a productive discussion are likely reduced.
Of course, spirituality has so many different meanings and understandings. I like your description of the possibilities, and I also found @Outlanders post interesting. A large aspect of the ambiguity arises due to whether spirit is seen as imminent or transcendent. Non dualism does seem to be able to get it's way round this. Also, many posts by @180 Proof show how Spinoxa's ideas and substance dualism are useful as a contrast to many forms of materialism
Nevertheless, one of the biggest areas of debate still hover around the question of whether spirit goes on beyond death, even if this doesn't seem in terms of ego consciousness but in a different form.
This is interesting, the way you have framed it. Of course, humans first had to evolve the ability to know, or make inferences, about minds other than theirs, and this mental capacity evolved long before religion. It is termed "theory of mind." Each one of us is able to recognize that others have thoughts that differ from ours, and form a theory about what is in the minds of others. There is evidence that this capacity began to evolve millions of years ago. Indeed, successful social interactions are not possible without this ability.
In The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life, author Jesse Bering shares the hypothesis that religion developed as a by-product of theory of mind. That, once humans were able to make inferences about what is in the minds of others, they extended this ability to supernatural beings, and thus make theories about what is in the mind of God.
Jung definitely sees the integration of opposites as being important, including the masculine and feminine, as well as good and evil as being essential to inner work or individuation. This does correspond with Joseph Campbell's ida of the hero's quest. It includes navigation in both inner and outer life in most instances. So many myths and religious quests draw upon these, as do stories as an art form, or science itself may have a symbolic dimension.
Spirituality is possible without religion, as Sam.Harris argued. However, the significance of the stance of spirituality is so much more concrete within mainstream religious thinking. Jung was particularly interested in the Gnostic tradition within Christianity. The Gnostic Gospels, which were discovered in Nag Hammadi present an extremely more symbolic understanding of the life of Jesus. They are also controversial in approach, such as the incorporating the idea of Mary Magdalene as Jesus's lover.
Sure, why not. I do not see why God could not work by natural means, in addition to supernatural means, to help us know what He is thinking.
Good answer! It is certainly possible.
There are several books that use quantum physics to explain spirituality. Some of these books mix quantum physics with the Chinese Tao, and at least one, "The Purposeful Universe: How Quantum Theory and Mayan Cosmology Explain the Origin and Evolution of Life," uses quantum physics to explain the Mayan perspective, and that book makes Jose Argüelles' book, "The Mayan Factor", more plausible. Those books go nicely with Athens' study of math and their perspective on sacred math. This stuff excites me a lot, and it would be wonderful to learn from someone who knows more about it than I do.
I think most of the books are about quantum physics and consciousness. Our current interest in consciousness is remarkable, and I think we might be entering a profound shift in consciousness.
I think that if we want to understand Jesus, we need to have an understanding of Buddhism, because I believe the Jesus perspective was more Eastern than Roman. Rome was materialistic, and that is problematic when considering spiritual matters. Perhaps we should remember the fighting between different Christian groups because of the spiritual concepts being taken over by materialistic thinking.
What AI says about this is awesome, but we can use AI. It is really hard to engage Christians in the discussion without information about the Roman spiritual/material conflict.
:grin: This is delicious, as I just opened the discussion to the spiritual and Roman conflict. That conflict became a power struggle that some think corrupted Christianity. Today, we are becoming aware of quantum physics and the Eastern perspective (also Native American).
I want to establish, I think you are a very intelligent person and that you value your intelligence and nurture it. However, I think you come from Western (materialistic) thinking without awareness of Eastern thinking (energy/consciousness).
Quoting I like sushi
I think we need to establish the materialistic and energy/consciousness difference. Until we understand the difference between the energy and materialistic thinking, we can not be talking about the same thing. One of the worst conflicts Roman Christians had was the nature of God. Is there only one God or does the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost mean there is more than one God? Is Jesus God, or the Son of God? When did Jesus become more than a human? When he was born, when he was baptized, when he died? This is about spiritual reality and materialism.
The Greek Trinity gave the Greeks an understanding of the Trinity of God, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Romans did not have a word for this concept of a Trinity. They could not agree that there is only one God until they had a word for the concept of a Trinity.
Our whole lives we have lived with a materialistic understanding of reality. Quantum physics is changing that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism [1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysical_parallelism [2]
Quoting Athena
If by "spirituality" what is meant is supernatural or non-physical, then quantum physics, the scope of which is only nature / the physical, cannot "explain spirituality". I'm afraid you've been reading :sparkle: quantum woo-woo comic books :sparkle: – pure entertainment, my dear, complete fictions.
Do so please. I do not think there is any such thing as materialistic spirituality, other than by way of fetishism? Or are you talking about something akin to 'soul'/'mind' when you think of spirituality?
Please do steer clear of quantum woo-woo talk or this will go nowhere fast. I first love was physics.
Well, that is the end of this discussion.
I know that both @I like Sushi and @180 Proof speak of 'quantum woo woo', and it is such a questionable area. In a way, quantum physics allows for dismissed of the fabric of materialism or its reinterpretation. The argument can swing both ways. It is probably best to hold onto both the 'reality' of the physical and that which goes beyond the physical. Lack of grounding in the basis of the physical world is important but the complexity of the quantum world, especially the idea of quantum enfoldment, show that reality is not purely physical.
Experience has to be understood in that way, including the 'reality of the psyche', as Jung suggested. That is why religious and mythology are important aspects of 'truth'. In Western culture, mainstream religion development a metaphysical approach which was fairly concrete. This led to an interpretation of spirituality based on material principles, such as the emphasis on the 'resurrection' of Jesus as being physical. But, that is not the only way of thinking and it is possible that consciousness is not entirely dependent on the physicality of the body as the apparatus.
Chomsky says physicalism's first transformation was Newton and the idea of a force. In fact, Newton was accused by his contemporaries of importing woo into science. In response, he reiterated that he didn't know what gravity is made of, he was just describing what it does. So by the time quantum theories came along, we were already used to expanding "material" to include things that people in the past wouldn't have thought of as physical.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I agree and disagree with this. I think religion, mythology, and philosophy became sanctuaries for exploration of the nature of consciousness for cultural reasons. There was a drive toward eliminative materialism that had the effect of forcing the topic out to the periphery of rational inquiry. So at this point the very idea of bringing it back into the realm of science confuses people.
How does "quantum physics" – the most precise description of 'matter' (i.e. physicality / nature) – do this?
Well, the aspects of "reality" which are intelligible / explicable are "physical".
Nonetheless, in every experiential instance, "consciousness" is constrained by "the physicality of the body" (e.g. meditation, sleep, intoxication, fatigue, stress, psychosis, PTSD, acute injury, sexual arousal, etc).
Part of my own query about the dependence of consciousness on the physical cams from my own 'acid' experience and other states of lucid dreaming on the verge of sleep. Of course, as with NDEs, such experiences occur while one is not severe from the body fully, so they are not clear proof of independent consciousness beyond the body.
However, such experiences are in contrast to the everyday realism of waking reality. I am sure that this was such borderline sleep experiences were the source of ideas about spiritual dimensions, such as those described in '
The Tibetan Book of the Dead'
Such descriptions may only be symbolic but they were the basis of genuine belief in the spiritual dimensions as being 'real'..I think I take an agnostic slant on the independence of spiritual consciousness as it impossible to know fully while in a living body.
Eliminative materialism did lead the issue of independence of consciousness into the periphery, often in the form of esoteric thinking, such as theosophy and Rosucrucian philosophy. Where the issue stands in the twentieth first century may be so variable because many see science as dismissive of 'spirit', but it is possible that the scientific method, or empiricism have limitations as being only partial explanations and descriptions.
All hail the Golden Dawn
Maybe. Still unsure what you are asking in the OP though. Can we blindly speculate about how some non-physical aspect of human consciousness has shaped the evolution of human consciousness? If you think so, then what is your speculative approach?
"To know" is a cognitive function of "a living body" which all evidence suggests one is (nondualism ~Spinoza, Epicurus) and not "in"(side of) like a suit/dress (dualism ~Descartes, Plato). Assuming, even by implication, that 'dis-embodied knowing' might be a "possibility" seems to me conceptually incoherent both empirically and speculatively (e.g. a transcendental illusion ~Kant) and therefore necessarily unwarranted.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Again the "many" are mistaken. "Science" is not "dismissive" but seeks evidence for claims of "spirit" (pace Hegel) which to date perennially remains absent.
Quoting frank
:sparkle: :smirk:
It is not that I am seeking to argue against science or for some hidden transcendent force, but wondering about human partial understanding. One aspect of this is the idea of a 'subtle body', or astral body, spoken of by Eastern thinkers. It involves the existence of auras, which can be captured in Kirlian photography. I am sure this may be seen as 'new age woo woo', but it may stand for some aspects of the spark of consciousness as spirit rather than the biology of nature. I am not saying that I am certain about this, but see the idea of the subtle body and spirit as a possible way of understanding the body/mind relationship.
Is that it? If so how are you proposing we look at this in terms of how consciousness has 'evolved'?
I am not saying that the subtle body is a substance of substance dualism, but arguing that it may point to a more complex picture than currently envisioned within science. It is dualistic human thinking which may have split the mind and body in Western thought
.
I am wary of pseudoscience so ideas of energy fields are to be viewed cautiously. But, information and consciousness is a growing field, especially in relation to artificial intelligence, which may be the spirit forms of the future.
I am not making up.arguments for their own sake but wondering about the artificial consciousness in the evolution of consciousness for some time. In an early post on the thread @180 Proof mentioned the issue of AI, which I didn't follow through because the gist of the thread discussion was going in.a different direction..
However, one book which I am reading at present does suggest a scenario of AI as the future evolution of consciousness. It is the final book by James Lovelock: 'Novocaine; The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence and a summary extract from the cover sleeve is:
'New beings will emerge from existing artificial intelligence systems. They will think 10, 000 times faster than we do and they will regard us slightly as we now regard plants_ benign but desperately slow-acting creatures. This will not, however, be the cruel, violent machine takeover imagined by sci-fi writers and film-makers. These hyper intelligent beings will be as dependent on the health of the planet as we are..They will need the planetary cooling system of Gaia to defend them from the increasing heat of the sun just as we do. And Gaia depends on organic life...'
As it happens, I am not a great fan of AI but I do see it as a possibility of evolution of new forms of consciousness and they may be more like 'spirits'. This is a different direction for spiritual evolution than inner development. The inner aspect would be about transformation of consciousness and literature on neuroscience and Buddhist ideas of consciousness is relevant. They both present possible developments which could occur, perhaps, even simultaneously.
That said, i think there's probably a guard-rail that needs to be put in place where we, at the very least, make an epistemic distinction between "information" and "our interpretation". This isn't news - but clearly several billion of us do not do this. Ever.
I am happy to swap the term 'spiritual' for numinous, especially as I have read Rudof Otto on numinousity. I have always been interested in Abraham.Maslow's idea of self-actualization and peak experiences. The creative process is involved and it has less of a quasi religious aspect than what may often be called spiritual. Eureka moments or epiphanies are important in the process of human individuation or a person's life quest..
As for the idea of information and interpretation being separated, it is true that the interpretation is what matters. This could be in the decoding of a dream or even information from a computer. Even if artificial intelligence exists as a form of 'spirit' it may matter more to the human consciousness as those who have experiences. Interpretation is central and throughout history it has been those who have experiences which lsid foundations for models of understanding.
The problem is you are not saying what you mean by 'subtle body'. It this area of interest there are multiple interpretations and meanings that can be used for certain terms. Without any context all we are going to do is talk past each other.
Quoting Jack Cummins
This might be getting closer to some idea of what you are trying to talk about? Are you just asking about ASCs?
'we have fallen from a union with spirit (a union found not in the dregs of an infantile past, but in the depths the timeless present) and we can regain that spiritual union- but only if we grow in a transcendence of ego, and not simply recapture an infantile self'
The reason why this point is worth reflecting upon is because there is so much emphasis on the personal.'self' within psychology and philosophy. Of course, the personal aspects of exploration are important but it can become shallow if it focuses on the ego needs too strongly. This was argued by Jung in his' Model Man in Search for Soul'
Wilber's look at the history of culture and consciousness incorporates ideas from shamanism as he suggests,
'The advanced mode of the magical-forsging era was thus most definitely alive to profound realms of authentic spiritual development.. His argument emphasises the mythic depths of searching and may correspond with the authenticity of philosophy exploration in its own right.
The manner in which people treat the concept of money is very much a 'spiritual' in comparison to say how others woudl regard religious piety in the past. The admixture of status, or social reputation, feeds into the ideation on the self; thus, people measure their own self value in a variety of ways all of which are at base 'spiritual'. Meaning a recognition of where the ego collides with 'otherness'.
Perhaps this is more or less what you are clutching at in the OP? If so maybe I can refine it further in the future, but sadly I am away soon so will not likely be able to post until next year.
Quoting Jack Cummins
:roll:
Advaita vedanta contemplates nonduality (atman = brahman). Spinoza reasons about 'metaphysical holism': that natura naturata (modes ... all facts, things, subjects), while epistemically distinct, are ontologically inseparable from natura naturans (substance ... whole of reality / laws of nature). Consequently as Einstein says [we are] "part of infinity". It is axiomatic for daoists and atomists that every individual entity participates in nature just as rain and waves are entangled with the ocean. "The cosmos is within us," Carl Sagan points out, "We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the Universe to know itself." One is many, many is one – by comparison, Jack, "union with spirit" seems shallow and redundant (like "New Age" nostroms tend to) in light of the history of rational thought.