"I'm not religious, I'm spiritual"

[cleanhippie]

thoughts?

[darkstar3]

1. Sounds familiar.

[cleanhippie]

2. It really does.

especially the third panel.

[tama]

3. Bite for me? :D

As a matter of fact, I'm very material, just not a materialist.

What's the definition of matter you would like to discuss?

[cleanhippie]

4. No, not for you.

For everyone.

And I want to discuss no definitions with you at all, as you have already stated that definitions mean nothing to you.

[tama]

8. That's

a misquote, and you know it.

[darkstar3]

5. To add to CH's point about you and definitions, I'd like to quote myself from another board.

"Labels are words, and words have meaning. We as a species have spent millennia creating, refining, and broadening the scope and usefulness of our language for one purpose: to take our thoughts and put them in a format that's easier for others to understand. What you do here repeatedly is work against that purpose. "

[cleanhippie]

6. Succinct and well-stated.

Then again, you are apparently very narrow minded (and militant), so I can give you no credibility.

[tama]

7. You are correct

I don't share the view of that "one purpose" of putting things in controllable order, which excludes for example poetry. absurd humor, etc., all the chaos and variety and fun and mystery of natural languages in all natural manifestations.

I have a friend, a philosopher of language, who uses the metaphor of three concentric rings to describe natural languages:
1) in the center there is language of the house, the "one purpose" of putting things in controllable order, where every piece of furniture has it's well defined place
2) second ring is the language of the yard, where the good orderliness of the house starts to brake down, there is constant fight against the forces of nature to keep up the order, but also the garden and fruit-trees and playgrounds.
3) outermost ring is the language of wilderness, language as untamed force of nature.

Third ring is in no way less expressive and less rich than the language of the house, and in fact in the hierarchy of codependencies the language of wilderness can exist without the language of home, but not vice versa. People can and do walk in the forest and sing with the forest without any knowledge of any well ordered theories that try to explain nature - sadly sometimes also to explain nature away in the fear of getting out of the well-ordered house with all things seemingly in control.

In the context of this metaphor, you seem to be saying that the "one purpose" of the language of wilderness is to develop language of the house, which is a teleological argument. Because also language of house exists, so it must have a higher or highest "one purpose", which is itself?

So sorry, but I and the rest of nature can't help being uncontrollable, which you see as "working against that purpose" of putting everything in controllable order. We can't, because it's our nature of being uncontrollable.

[darkstar3]

9. I said not one thing about control. You again work against the goal of effective communication.

On a message board, where we don't even have body language or other visual cues to help us, this work is tantamount to purposeful divisiveness.

[tama]

11. No you didn't

But I was thinking that maybe you are denying the control aspect of defining with a very loud silence.

Math is much better suited language for controlling nature with definitions - that's how you fly to moon and build a bridge that does not fall and do things like that with power of prediction - but it's very hard to translate into natural languages, and the difficulty increases with the complexity of math. Newton's math is translatable, that's been shown, but not so easy with quantum math.

And please note, I'm not saying your teleological argument is wrong, I just like to refine it with the math argument. And remind that teleological arguments are hard to prove.

Edit to add: those top scientists that work with advanced math, so I understand, actually rely very much on geometric imagination. "I imagined myself riding with light" is a quote from Einstein, IIRC, and possibly from many others. We use metaphors because they work.

[darkstar3]

13. I'm not talking about your use of metaphor, I'm talking about your blatant

and repeated disregard for the very meaning of words themselves. You masturbate with the English language and then expect others to pick up and use the mangled mess you leave behind. How's that for metaphor?

[tama]

14. That's unkind

and now I'm hurt. English is not my native tongue.

But that brings about another point I wanted to make. In my language - which I doubt you know, we have syntactic and semantic categories that are untranslatable into English. They can be explained, with much difficulty, but not translated. Syntactic and semantic categories that don't make the semantic distinctions that a very analytical language like English is forced to make at the level of syntax. My language is capable of making same syntactic distinctions as English, but it does not have to, in every sentence. In English the meaning of not making those distinctions gets lost.

And in terms of definitions, the point is that small languages like us are not always that eager to be colonialized by the definitions and distinctions of English language and thought, so that we loose our freedom not to make those distinctions. And it's of no use to tell me to shut up, directly or indirectly. That just makes me like you less. I don't tell others to shut up - and I don't alert either.

[darkstar3]

15. There was nowhere, directly or indirectly, where I told you to shut up.

I took you to task for purposely and gleefully misusing a language that I know you've been taught since early grade school, and I don't find your purpose to be nearly as high-minded as you make it out to be.

I stand by what I said, and I don't buy your claim to victimhood.

[tama]

18. OK then, you didn't.

As for using language, do we use language or does language use us? Even the possibility that it could be both ways escapes the consciousness of many subjects.

[AlbertCat]

20. do we use language or does language use us?

Oh for crying out loud! That just disqualified you from ever being taken seriously. I mean.... really!

[Leontius]

10. Well done you seem to have mastered the ability to make words mean nothing at all

and everything at the same time. The fact that this makes human communication impossible well you'll have to explain what's next.

[tama]

12. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

So that piece didn't meet with your comprehension horizon. Does that prove that it fails to communicate with every reader?

[AlbertCat]

21. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Bumpersticker platitudes aside....

Are you trying to sound like a second rate Deepak Chopra?

[tiny elvis]

16. what is the argument in opposition to 'i am spiritual'?

is there a name for that philosophy?
have you ever looked to see if there is a name for your philosophy?
if your philosophy is too special for a name, then it will need explaining

i generally argue from or for ontology, pragmatism or prajnaparamita
where are you coming from?

[ZombieHorde]

17. I wonder if those who enjoy that saying mean "philosophical" when they say "spiritual."

I don't really know.

Should I have a comma after the word "philosophical" in my subject line? I don't know that either.

[valerief]

19. Funny toon. My feelings exactly.

'Course I'm an atheist.

[AlbertCat]

22. "Spiritual" often means...

... "I know the supernatural is bunk, but I can't let anyone (and myself) know I think so"


for various reasons. Fear of the "A" word and its consequences.

[silverweb]

23. Everyone has their own path.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]In the 3rd frame, the cartoonist expresses a really supercilious attitude towards people who are uncomfortable with aligning themselves with just one religion's doctrines.

Perhaps some "unchurched" people embrace the attitude portrayed, but I think a great many more are simply honest seekers.

I've found components in most religions I've explored that I can admire and embrace (generally universal themes of love, kindness, honesty, etc), while I find other doctrines repugnant. For that reason, I've been unwilling to align myself with any particular organization. The cartoonist seems to have a problem with that and I find his attitude offensive.

There's a wonderful metaphor I read some years ago that stuck with me: "God is a mountain, and all paths lead to the top."

Whether it's called a philosophy or a religion, and whether "God" represents a supreme being, the universe, or just deeper self knowledge, each person has to be free to seek his/her own path free of haughty scorn from others.

[laconicsax]

24. About that metaphor...

It may sound clever, it ignores the reality of religious belief.

The metaphor has multiple paths leading to one 'truth' but even within specific religions, the pattern that emerges is one of multiple 'truths' emerging from an initial path.

I use quotes around 'truth' because unlike actual truths, it varies from person to person.

[silverweb]

25. You changed the metaphor.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I never used the word "truth" at all.

I used the term "God" and then offered a few examples of what "God" might mean to different people.

[cbayer]

26. Well done.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Most of those words in those orders don't mean anything.

And many of the ones that do are wrong.

Trying to understand things is not a "path". One does not come to understand things by looking at many different beliefs without trying to work out which ones are right and which ones are wrong, one does it by reasoning towards conclusions. The value of the activity is a) in the conclusions arrived at, and b) in practice arriving at conclusions enhancing ones ability to do so in future. It's not just about enjoying the view.

People who talk like you do almost invariably *aren't* seekers, you're deliberately-remain-losters who are actively contemptuous of those who are trying to come up with the right answers to questions and demonstrate that those answers are right (just as I am actively contemptuous of those who aren't, to be fair, but sometimes less openly).

Scientists are seekers. Even the most dogmatic religious fundamentalists are seekers - they're seekers who believe that what they're looking for is right where they are, but they're still concerned with deciding what is true and what isn't. People who refer to themselves as "spiritual but not religious" almost invariably aren't seeking after truth, they're simply enjoying the view.

The word "God" means (not "represents&quot a supreme being. It simply does not mean "the universe" or "just deeper self knowledge", that's just incorrect.

People do indeed have to be free to think how they choose. But those who choose not to try to be right about things have to accept "haughty scorn" as their lot.

[cleanhippie]

28. Well done.

[silverweb]

29. And you're perfectly free to think that.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Your first post said the exact opposite.

"each person has to be free to seek his/her own path free of haughty scorn from others."

[silverweb]

31. I didn't say I agree with you.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I said you're free to think what you wish.

[font "Arial"]"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
-Thomas Jefferson