I don't like the word 'spiritual' much but I think English doesn't have many useful equivalents. I found this passage in one of the essays of Nishijima roshi. — Wayfarer

Thanks. Yes, spiritual can be problematic. As you say there are so few simple words that can be used as an alternative in a plain English discussion of such matters. Happy to hear from anyone with a useable alternative. I think I generally use spiritual as an alternative to idealism.

One of my teams at work is called Spiritual Care and while that might sound delightfully vague, it does significant work helping people who are sick and in palliative care make sense of death and loss and find hope and connection to others. So part of me uses the word without irony and without quotation marks.

What is real is much greater than what exists. Hard idea to get. — Wayfarer

I have a sense of this. Reminds me of that quote often erroneously (I think) attributed to Einstein - “Not everything that can be counted counts and not every thing that counts can be counted”?

I suspect anyone who as worked with suicidal people knows that what is real is often greater than what exists. For me this is the nature of minds, if nothing else.

What about the word enlightenment - should we abolish it in its numinous guise?

I think that horse has truly bolted, but I notice it is a word that those who speak most meaningfully about it rarely use.

Oh, and I think that is a bona-fide Einstein quote. Goes with another of his, '“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”

One of my teams at work is called Spiritual Care and while that might sound delightfully vague, it does significant work helping people who are sick and in palliative care makes sense of death and loss and find hope and connection to others. So part of me uses the word without irony and without quotation marks. — Tom Storm

Of course. There the context gives it the intended meaning. Rather than as a token in a philosophical debate.

I'm afraid I must agree with you. Value comes from that which exists, whether existence is an accident or not. The Buddhists were obviously on to something, but conceptualizing what value is in these terms no longer seems necessary. It is quite easy to see that value is a human phenomenon at the highest level - i.e. art, poetry, science, and philosophy - and an organic phenomenon at the lowest - i.e. animals hunt and mate as a result of subconsious value of their own lives as developed through millions of years of cognitive evolution.

Reminds me of the 20% (forgot the actual figure) rule in hypertension: Only 20% of hypertensives are diagnosed. Of them, only 20% are actually treated. Of those treated, only in 20% is the hypertension actually cured. — Agent Smith

Good point. And if one wanted to, one may add the crucial difference that in this case the evidence of cure seems to be absent ... :smile:

Thanks. Yes, spiritual can be problematic. As you say there are so few simple words that can be used as an alternative in a plain English discussion of such matters. — Tom Storm

"Spiritual" is a fitting word. It conveys the vagueness of the "spiritual" endeavor and sets the task at hand, namely to clarify things for oneself.
It's good that "spiritual" has so much baggage; this way, one at least stands a chance to figure things out on one's own. Otherwise, "spirituality" would be yet another zombification activity.

One of my teams at work is called Spiritual Care and while that might sound delightfully vague, it does significant work helping people who are sick and in palliative care make sense of death and loss and find hope and connection to others.

Is this "Spiritual Care" mandatory?

And if one wanted to, one may add the crucial difference that in this case the evidence of cure seems to be absent ... — Apollodorus

The irony just goes on and on!

The irony just goes on and on! — baker

It does, doesn't it? I for one can see nothing wrong with seeing the funny side of things. I certainly don’t see enlightenment as reason to be overly despondent and in a bad mood. Quite the opposite, actually.

To revert to the phenomenon of religious conversion and “pressure to decide which religion to choose”, I think the factors that lead to such a situation should not be ignored.

What seems to be the case is that some people start with adaptability issues and rebelliousness which expresses itself as rejection of parental authority, and progresses to rejection of one’s own (i.e., the parents’) religion, culture, and in extreme cases, even race.

The pop singer Madonna grew up in the 60’s and 70’s. Though she had been a Catholic for most of her life, she joined a “Kabbalah” sect in the 90’s and later took an interest in Indian religion before taking up the study of Islam as well as getting herself a Muslim boyfriend.

In one of her statements she says:

I am building schools for girls in Islamic countries and studying the Qur'an. I think it is important to study all the holy books. As my friend Yaman always tells me, a good Muslim is a good Jew, and a good Jew is a good Christian, and so forth. I couldn't agree more. To some people this is a very daring thought.

Madonna 2013 Interview – Harpers Bazaar

Of course, with characters like Madonna it’s difficult to tell if they are serious about something or they just do it for the publicity-driving “shock value” of their statements and actions. But I think it does illustrate how adaptability issues can play a role in people’s decision to reject their own religion in favor of some “exotic” substitute.

Identity issues also seem to be involved as religious conversion often entails some kind of identity crisis.

The fact that (a) the substitute has to be alien and (b) the conversion has to be seen as “daring” (i.e., challenging the norm) at all costs, is worthy of further investigation, but it does suggest that there is a close link between rebelliousness and identity issues as causes of conversion.

In Madonna’s own words:

I did the opposite of what all the other girls were doing, and I turned myself into a real man repeller. I dared people to like me and my nonconformity.
That didn't go very well. Most people thought I was strange. I didn't have many friends; I might not have had any friends. But it all turned out good in the end, because when you aren't popular and you don't have a social life, it gives you more time to focus on your future. And for me, that was going to New York to become a REAL artist. To be able to express myself in a city of nonconformists.

We can see that even one’s professional career and whole life can be used as an expression of underlying psychological issues so that the whole person and their life becomes little more than an expression of those issues.

In any case, a key motivating factor in conversion is the desire in the convert for a radical change in his or her life. And that desire is rooted in other issues connected with adaptability and identity.

Given people’s tendency to mythologize themselves, it is tempting (and easy) to put a “spiritual” spin on it, but the fact remains that if we take the time to look beneath the surface, it often boils down to psychology and ego. In some cases it’s pretty plain and obvious without further analysis.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with “being daring”, but when it is done as a method of “self-expression” (i.e., ultimately, self-promotion), the whole thing may turn out to be little more than an ego-enhancing exercise.

Another aspect of the problem is that Western culture is currently under threat from external and internal developments. Without the support of its culture, the whole Western world is in danger of collapse. Some may argue that turning your back on your own people at this time is a sign of selfishness.

So, all facts considered, things are not necessarily quite as simple as they might appear to be, and a degree of critical analysis can’t be a bad thing. Unless we choose to not analyze the inconvenient bits that most people prefer to overlook or cover up.

See also:

Zinnbauer & Pargament, “Spiritual Conversion: A Study of Religious Change Among College Students”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(1), 1998, 161–180.

Yes, spiritual can be problematic. As you say there are so few simple words that can be used as an alternative in a plain English discussion of such matters. Happy to hear from anyone with a useable alternative. I think I generally use spiritual as an alternative to idealism. — Tom Storm

How about 'transformative'?

Is this "Spiritual Care" mandatory? — baker

No

"Spiritual" is a fitting word. It conveys the vagueness of the "spiritual" endeavor and sets the task at hand, namely to clarify things for oneself. — baker

Interesting perspective.

How about 'transformative'? — Janus

I can see some uses for this. The issue is it could be used to describe both enlightenment and The Enlightenment and I am trying to find words to distinguish projects.

The pop singer Madonna grew up in the 60’s and 70’s. Though she had been a Catholic for most of her life, she joined a “Kabbalah” sect in the 90’s and later took an interest in Indian religion before taking up the study of Islam as well as getting herself a Muslim boyfriend. — Apollodorus

Of course none of us can guess at Madonna's motivations, but this all seems to be the typical trajectory of a restless showbiz type who constantly playacts with charged but superficial images and appearances in an endless quest, and by association with such images, to remain relevant and interesting. I wonder if it's all just surfaces for her and if there is any depth at all.

Of course, with characters like Madonna it’s difficult to tell if they are serious about something or they just do it for the publicity-driving “shock value” of their statements and actions. — Apollodorus

Indeed. The perennial philosophy and the New Age movement were as popular as Netflix when I was young (I mixed in those circles for a few years) and it frequently seemed to be fuelled by a resentment of the Christianity of the West and often the West in general. I often think this is an outcome of the modernist mindset to go against the West's own presuppositions.

As an atheist who worships only nature, I view religions as vast symbol-systems far more challenging and complex than poststructuralism, with its myopic focus on social structures. Poststructuralism has no metaphysics and is therefore incapable of spirituality or sublimity. There has been wave after wave of influences from Asian religion over the century and a half since Emerson and Madame Blavatsky, but the resultant New Age movement is choked with debris—with trivia, silliness, mumbo-jumbo, flimflam, and outright falsehoods. The first step in any solution is a return to origins — to the primary texts of sacred literature, supported by art history and archaeology.

The religious impulse of the sixties must be rescued from the wreckage and redeemed. The exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism that my generation had to get haphazardly from contemporary literature and music should be formalized and standardized for basic education. What students need to negotiate their way through the New Age fog is scholarly knowledge of ancient and medieval history, from early pagan nature cults through the embattled consolidation of Christian theology. Teaching religion as culture rather than as morality also gives students the intellectual freedom to find the ethical principles at the heart of every religion. — Camille Paglia, Cults and Cosmic Consciousness

Close to what we're trying to do here.

I clicked on the question expecting a discussion of secular democracy and scientific rationality; but quite the opposite. For the author, the enlightenment I imagined he spoke of amounts to:

a soulless, physicalist world, — Tom Storm

...framed in contrast to some spiritual quality he can only imagine exists. Maybe clinging to fantasy casts the world as solulless physicalism, obscuring the miraclulous nature of everyday reality with gaudy decorations constructed from human imagination.

...framed in contrast to some spiritual quality he can only imagine exists. Maybe clinging to fantasy casts the world as solulless physicalism, obscuring the miraclulous nature of everyday reality with gaudy decorations constructed from human imagination. — karl stone

Not a terrible attempt at doing a reading of my OP. But I did mention there I was a half-arsed secular humanist. It might pay you to speculate what the other half might be...

Here are the questions that have so far led to 26 pages of divergent responses. Why don't you have a go at something substantive?

Does enlightenment necessarily involve transcendence and higher consciousness as understood in spiritual traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism? Would some include 'illuminated' figures from different traditions such as Jesus? Is there a difference between wisdom/self-realization and enlightenment? Does the word enlightenment hold any real meaning, or is it just a poetic umbrella term for a fully integrated and intelligent person? — Tom Storm

Close to what we're trying to do here. — Wayfarer

Worth noting that Paglia is a strong atheist. The problem is people hear atheism and think Dawkins when they might well be closer to Nietzsche.. :gasp:

Not a terrible attempt at doing a reading of my OP. But I did mention there I was a half-arsed secular humanist. It might pay you to speculate what the other half might be...Here are the questions that have so far led to 26 pages of divergent responses. Why don't you have a go at something substantive? — Tom Storm

The other half is also arse! It's half-arsed, as opposed to fully arsed. It's not half arse half-man! That aside, I have my views about the nature of reality and consciousness - if that's what you mean by something substantive, but I'm more interested currently in how the so-called enlightenment period - I thought you were alluding to when I clicked on the question; clearly described as such with great optimism, in time amounts to your half arsed, secular humanist soulless physicalism? Because to my mind, scientific truth is far more amazing than the fairy stories of our dim distant ancestors!

Well that's all very amusing but do you have any views worth defending or do you just make bold claims?

What is a scientific truth? How is it true?

Worth noting that Paglia is a strong atheist. — Tom Storm

I don't believe in the God that a lot of atheists dispute the existence of, but I'm not atheist. I suspect it has to do with what the popular imagination makes of the idea.

the miraclulous nature of everyday reality — karl stone

is extremely adept at disguising itself

don't believe in the God that a lot of atheists dispute the existence of, but I'm not atheist. — Wayfarer

As far as I can recall Paglia doesn't believe in idealism or any transcendent guarantees. Which is why I find it odd in her essays on aesthetics that she talks like a Platonist (truth beauty goodness). I think some forms of ardent Darwinism end up sounding like idealism possibly based on some notion that certain dispositions and states of affairs are reified by the evolutionary process.

Well that's all very amusing — Tom Storm

Is it? Did I do a funny? You'll have to point it out to me! Maybe I can do more!!

do you have any views worth defending or do you just make bold claims?

I do, but it doesn't feel like I have a receptive audience! It's more like I'm being heckled!
— Tom Storm

What is a scientific truth? How is it true? — Tom Storm

Do you not know? How absolute is your lack of knowledge on this subject? I haven't the time or the patience to give you lessons in scientific method and epistemology!

I think some forms of ardent Darwinism end up sounding like idealism possibly based on some notion that certain dispositions and states of affairs are reified by the evolutionary process. — Tom Storm

The Western tradition is fundamentally Platonist~Aristotelian. Materialism is parasitic on it. (Don flak jacket.)

I haven't the time or the patience to give you lessons in scientific method and epistemology! — karl stone

Thank heavens for small mercies.

Do you not know? How absolute is your lack of knowledge on this subject? I haven't the time or the patience to give you lessons in scientific method and epistemology! — karl stone

I'm going to assume you are a high school kid. Go well, Son.

I'm going to assume you are a high school kid. Go well, Son. — Tom Storm

More solid evidence you're an idiot!

More solid evidence you're an idiot! — karl stone

Ah, good 'evidence' keep going we may get to an actual idea soon...

the miraclulous nature of everyday reality
— karl stone

is extremely adept at disguising itself — Wayfarer

If by that you mean reality is complex, then I agree - which is part of what makes it so astounding. There are 26 letters on a keyboard, from which can be constructed about 200,000 english words, that can be strung into a virtually infinite number of meaningful sentences. Similarly, there are 118 chemical elements, and four fundamental forces - and that's before we get into quantum physics, from which all the diversity of life on earth is written. If you're not amazed by that - and feel some yearning need to string up philosophical fairy lights and set off fireworks to make reality special, then you're missing something!

:ok:

If by that you mean reality is complex, then I agree - which is part of what makes it so astounding. There are 26 letters on a keyboard, from which can be constructed about 200,000 english words, that can be strung into a virtually infinite number of meaningful sentences. Similarly, there are 118 chemical elements, and four fundamental forces - and that's before we get into quantum physics, from which all the diversity of life on earth is written. If you're not amazed by that - and feel some yearning need to string up philosophical fairy lights and set off fireworks to make reality special, then you're missing something — karl stone

This reminded me of Wittgenstein.

“Wittgenstein told his audience that what he was doing was 'persuading people to change their style of thinking , . He was, he said, 'making propaganda' for one style of thinking as opposed to another. 'I am honestly disgusted with the other', he added. The 'other' he identified as the worship of science, and he therefore spent some time in these lectures execrating what he considered to be powerful and damaging forms of evangelism for this worship - the popular scientific works of the time, such as Jeans's The Mysterious Universe:

“Jeans has written a book called The Mysterious Universe and I loathe it and call it misleading. Take the title ... I might say the title The Mysterious Universe includes a kind of idol worship, the idol being Science and the Scientist.”

(Ray Monk’s Wittgenstein)

This reminded me of Wittgenstein. — Joshs

I was required to read Wittgenstein at university, and loathed him almost as much as I hated Heidegger. I consider them both 'obscurantists' - whose jargonistic philosophy creates devotees. All this 'being in the world, and sein und dasein - is metaphysical hocus pocus. Any philosophy worth reading begins with epistemology; and the epitome of epistemology is scientific method.

All this 'being in the world, and sein und dasein - is metaphysical hocus pocus. Any philosophy worth reading begins with epistemology; and the epitome of epistemology is scientific method. — karl stone

How about philosophy that ties into cutting edge science, like cognitive theory or perceptual psychology? As an adherent of ‘scientific method’ I would assume you try to keep up with actual research results in such cutting edge fields. If so you may notice increasing attention paid to phenomenology. For instance, check out the journal Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences
https://www.springer.com/journal/11097