Simply explaining my idea of spirituality using philosophical jargon :)

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

The issue is that idealism, pantheism and mysticism require a relationship to an opposite to exist. Oneness cannot be conceptualized without it being opposed to Seperation.

Thus, you have fallen into a duality, and called one side of that duality fundamental. That duality is not fundamental, unless it is deemed so.

Yep. This goes back to my earlier point about conceding to the dualistic assumptions inherent in communication:

 

On 12.2.2022 at 10:06 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Ok, here's some backstory to why I wrote this:

I'm taking a class in psychology of religion, and in the first class we had to divide ourselves into four groups (1. spiritual and religious, 2. spiritual and non-religious, 3. non-spiritual and religious, and 4. non-spiritual and non-religious) and then talk about why we chose that group. I felt I didn't explain myself well enough, so I wondered if I could find a way to explain myself as concisely as possible using a suitable reference point for that target group, or at least something they're vague familiar with, which I thought would be Western philosophy.

Anyways, I say this because we always have to concede to various degrees of dualistic assumptions while communicating, like that there exists other people, that other people can understand you, that you have different beliefs, and that the interesting discussions are about figuring out the disagreements. For example, you would mainly bring up ontological idealism because it could be a relevant point of disagreement (as most people are ontological materialists), rather than some innocent statement like "I'm a human." These would be examples of pragmatic assumptions.

An example of a more abstract assumption (on the level of ontology), is how the idealist has to concede to the language that falls out of the materialist's dualistic assumption, namely that matter produces a substance called mind, and then express their disagreement within that framework: "well, since you created the distinction between mind and matter, I think the best way to describe my position would be that there exists nothing but mind." However, if everybody were idealists, you wouldn't necessarily have to use that language. If everybody assumes that experience is the ontological primitive of reality, then "mental", "mind" or "psychic" just becomes synonymous with "reality." 

 

[Leo Gura]

Non-spiritual and religious?

Lol

[Girzo]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Non-spiritual and religious

Yeah, it exist. Like nuns who choose to be nuns just for the community and to have power over other people. They only care about the "cosplay" aspects of religion.

It's not an attack towrds any nun, it's just answers of some of them to the interviews with scientists, which have led to creation of this category of non-spiritual and religious.

[Scholar]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yep. This goes back to my earlier point about conceding to the dualistic assumptions inherent in communication:

 

 

Like I said, it is deeper than communication, it is your very sense of reality that you have and why you communicate certain things in certain ways in the first place.

The "dualistic assumption" are inherent to the "realizations" you have.

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Non-spiritual and religious?

Lol

Haha yeah, only one person went to that group ? (it's not a big class though). I think he explained it as he doesn't believe in anything supernatural, but he thinks religious traditions and practices are useful for living a good life.

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

Like I said, it is deeper than communication, it is your very sense of reality that you have and why you communicate certain things in certain ways in the first place.

The "dualistic assumption" are inherent to the "realizations" you have.

What does that even mean? Are you saying awakening to non-duality is in fact dualistic? The way I see it is that you have a mystical experience (non-dualistic), and then you construct a conceptual understanding (dualistic) of it based on your cultural symbols (symbols that were communicated to you), and then you use that to communicate your understanding.

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What does that even mean? Are you saying awakening to non-duality is in fact dualistic? The way I see it is that you have a mystical experience (non-dualistic), and then you construct a conceptual understanding (dualistic) of it based on your cultural symbols (symbols that were communicated to you), and then you use that to communicate your understanding.

The way you see it is another construct and symbol. I am saying that you cannot help but frame it, and I want you to see the frame. It's not the concepts that you create, but rather that which gives rise to it.

You are trying to frame it again, can you see that? "Oh, so in actuality, awakening to non-duality is in fact dualistic, huh?"

Only if it is deemed so. It doesn't mean anything, unless it is deemed so.

 

I can't really help beyond that.

[Carl-Richard]

On 14.2.2022 at 6:25 PM, Scholar said:

The way you see it is another construct and symbol. I am saying that you cannot help but frame it, and I want you to see the frame. It's not the concepts that you create, but rather that which gives rise to it.

You are trying to frame it again, can you see that? "Oh, so in actuality, awakening to non-duality is in fact dualistic, huh?"

"The way I see it" is always just a frame, or a thought, shared between two individuals, i.e. communication. This has been acknowledged already, which means this is an unproductive discussion. Let me demonstrate how unproductive it really is:

To present a frame without mentioning that it is in fact a frame is not a contradiction of the fact that it is a frame. To do that, you have to change the focus of the communication to the communication itself (which you did by stating that its indeed just frames), which is called meta-communication. That is all you've done.

What I'm saying is that the meta-communication has already occured. If you can't acknowledge this fact and instead continue responding with "that is also just a frame", then you're stuck in an infinite regress of not meta-communication but meta-monologue. Communication is when you grant the frames that the other person is presenting, not recursively undermining their frames by presenting your own frame (a type of power game), which is not postmodern irony but postmodern hypocrisy: deconstructing the other but not oneself.