Spirit/Spirituality: A marshmallow word suitable only for roasting?

[Insp. Clue!So?]

The believers (and even the occasionaly UU) use the term "Spirit" and derivatives as a stand-in for some aspect of their particular deity. Said aspect is never or rarely ever defined, however--we're all just supposed to "know" what is meant and presumably nod our heads as if something profound is being mentioned.

Well I don't get it. It's used awfully sloppily, and seems to really mean whatever the hearer feels like letting it mean. So it's a freeroll for the expresser, makes everybody feel good and doesn't advance understanding one iota.

Does it mean The Force? Or amorphous influences eminating from one aspect of The Trinity? Or some Mystic Cloak that ties together all the beliefs in all their disparities and contradictions? Is it that zooming rush you get when your adrenal glands work overtime upon some emotional or other command from your head (probably the only explanation unacceptable to the Believer crowd)? The sang-froid of the "Soul"? A poor cousin to the harder-edged concept of "Soul" for those afraid of the resultant doctrinal implications?

What? What?

I say it's mere textual pollution at times, and at other times a lasso used to hornswallop any believers in the audience; a Sgt. Major who'll bark them into assembly and march them in the right direction--applying faint cadence when earthy dogma might only serve to divide the broad TB flock.

All stuff and bunk. There is no spirituality because there is no Spirit.

[vhawk01]

I wouldn't use as much Roaring 20's vernacular, but otherwise I might find myself making this exact same post. Agreed on all counts.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
The believers (and even the occasionaly UU) use the term "Spirit" and derivatives as a stand-in for some aspect of their particular deity. Said aspect is never or rarely ever defined, however--we're all just supposed to "know" what is meant and presumably nod our heads as if something profound is being mentioned.

Well I don't get it. It's used awfully sloppily, and seems to really mean whatever the hearer feels like letting it mean. So it's a freeroll for the expresser, makes everybody feel good and doesn't advance understanding one iota.

Does it mean The Force? Or amorphous influences eminating from one aspect of The Trinity? Or some Mystic Cloak that ties together all the beliefs in all their disparities and contradictions? Is it that zooming rush you get when your adrenal glands work overtime upon some emotional or other command from your head (probably the only explanation unacceptable to the Believer crowd)? The sang-froid of the "Soul"? A poor cousin to the harder-edged concept of "Soul" for those afraid of the resultant doctrinal implications?

What? What?

I say it's mere textual pollution at times, and at other times a lasso used to hornswallop any believers in the audience; a Sgt. Major who'll bark them into assembly and march them in the right direction--applying faint cadence when earthy dogma might only serve to divide the broad TB flock.

All stuff and bunk. There is no spirituality because there is no Spirit.


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you did some thinking in this post and ask you the source of this thought? The ancient greeks saw thought as a perception in the same way that you might observe a color. So they observed the world of thought and brought this to the earthly realm.They also saw this rationality intrinsic to this thought world in which they perceived. Aristotle brought Logic to this world as a gift,from the very world which produces the movements of the planets in orderly fashion. To say he invented logic is to think mechanical but Aristotle and Plato would have known about this region of cosmic beings in thought.

In our time we say we are producers of thought similar to thoughts being squeezed out of the turnip of our brain. The rationalization which you use, the logic inherent, the force of presentation are are all contained within the world of the spirit for which thinking is our entrance to the NON SUBSTANTIAL WORLD.

You have used the very entity which you deny in order to display your point. Imagine a "world of cacaphony" or in another way "chaos" which becomes ameliorated by thought and in this the human "I" affects not only the world of himself but the cosmically human. Another perception of this "chaos" is the irrationality intrinsic to human nature on which the human being rides the waves of this "chaos" in his internal life. The "EGO" or "I" stands outside of earthly time working within this experience and in doing so he advances in substantial being.

My question to you is "what holds the sun in the sky"; the rhythms of the seasons, the rotations of the universal bodies, the movement of the earth, all display an orderliness which cannot be attributed to the physicallity of these bodies. Newton, Galileo,Darwin, Hegel,Kant,Spinoza,Einstein, all were aware of this magnificent celestial movement and all in their rewpective ways worked within the orderliness(and chaos) of these worlds. They all used THINKING as their tool which manifests in the supersensible(not physical sensation!!).

The religious likewise entered into this THOUGHT FULL WORLD and saw its sacredness as a gift to mankind. The Bible representation of "Knowledge of Good and Evil" is inextricably intertwined with this THOUGHT FULL WORLD.

[PairTheBoard]

I think the breadth of meanings for the words Spirit or Spiritual are a strength rather than a weakness. There's a pretty good overview of them here:

Wikipedia Entry for "Spirit" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit)

I think people tend to nod their heads and let the words pass because they have an intuitive idea of what they convey. My use of the words usually center on the subjective experience of people when they contemplate questions of the "Why" and the "Way" of existence. What is the nature of our existence? These are questions which science is not suited to answer. Science can tell us that the Universe is like a machine. But many people want more than that. They want "Spiritual" answers. They want solutions to their lives. Perceiving the Universe as a machine and themselves as a machine often does not provide that solution. They seek a "Spiritual" solution.

The words have a simple meaning for people who understand the difference between a glum, pessimistic, selfish, abusive, hateful Spirit and a bright, optimistic, generous, caring, loving Spirit. People can recognize the transition from one to the other as Spiritual Growth. It doesn't have to involve a lot of metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

You can try to reduce it all to "Machine" language if you insist. If that's what makes you happy who am I to argue with you. But not everybody is satisfied with that metaphor or outlook. Why is that Your concern?

PairTheBoard

[yukoncpa]

Spirituality the way you describe it PTB, sounds sensible. I’ve often wondered what girls mean when they describe themselves to me as spiritual but not religious.

I went to a Friends Church with a girlfriend. The pastor was giving a lecture on how pets don’t have souls and won’t be making it to heaven. I looked around, and some kids began to cry, but adults were eating it up in awestruck amazement. Then some guy in a cowboy hat and a goofy smile began playing a guitar and singing about Jesus. The congregation chimed in with loud hallelujas and Praise Jesus’s. I just about wanted to barf. Then I looked at my girlfriend who had the vacuous, but pleased look of a baby about to suck on a pacifier. She turned to me and said, “can’t you just feel the spirit”. I knew then, that church life and spirits, other than Johnnie Walker Black and Maker’s Mark, just weren’t for me. I told her as much.

Then, she, wearing her short-shorts, approached the pastor after the sermon and the two of them, retired to his office. She explained her problems to him regarding me and he told her I was a misguided heathen Mormon and that she shouldn’t see me any more. He then kissed her on the lips. After our breakup, she told me that during that kiss, she could feel the spirit surge strongly in her body. I told her, “Praise Jesus and Hallelulja, this is the first time I could empathize, I now know what that damn spiritual feeling is”.

[PairTheBoard]

Sounds like that was a real "soul" kiss. I wonder if the pastor ever got into the spirit of her short-shorts.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
My use of the words usually center on the subjective experience of people when they contemplate questions of the "Why" and the "Way" of existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you're mangling the common usage of the word.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the nature of our existence? These are questions which science is not suited to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing is suited to answer them. Science merely gives the tools to better understand truth. If you lived 500 years ago you'd be carrying on about how illness is caused by a sick "spirit". The problem is not with your subjective understanding of spirit but the way in which you apply it to reality.

[ QUOTE ]
"Science can tell us that the Universe is like a machine.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it can't.

[ QUOTE ]
But many people want more than that. They want "Spiritual" answers. They want solutions to their lives. Perceiving the Universe as a machine and themselves as a machine often does not provide that solution. They seek a "Spiritual" solution.

[/ QUOTE ]
People seek simple solutions to unanswerable questions and unpleasant feelings. They want to feel a certain way and are willing to sacrifice truth and integrity to get there. I consider such an attitude one of the great evils in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
The words have a simple meaning for people who understand the difference between a glum, pessimistic, selfish, abusive, hateful Spirit and a bright, optimistic, generous, caring, loving Spirit. People can recognize the transition from one to the other as Spiritual Growth. It doesn't have to involve a lot of metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except when you link it in with the death of a Jew 2000 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
You can try to reduce it all to "Machine" language if you insist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very few atheists insist on this. I for one am open to possibility of other realities and modes of existence. However, it remains it a possiblity with me, and nothing more. I don't brand my own ridiculously narrow ideas on it or link it in with hilarious Jewish fables.

[PairTheBoard]

You might want to read this link to the

Wikipedia Entry for Spirituality Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality_Studies)

Together with the link I gave in my first post, I don't think I'm using the words incorrectly. I also didn't make mention of any particular Religion in my post. Although people do often link them, it's not necessary if you're just talking about Spirituality. Unless you just want another excuse to slam your favorite slamming religion.

PairTheBoard