136 replies to this topic

[Goose]

I find it interesting that most changes of belief happen through a "revelation". It's never something that happens gradually or calmly, always quickly and with a sense of being "open to the world". Considering that this appears to happen for every religion, I'm tempted to call it a trick of the mind as opposed to a genuine spiritual encounter.

But this is where my experience denouces that old myth. It happened over a number of years. It was gradual revelation, if that makes any sense. It wasn't an instant thing. It was more like a roller coaster, where you ride it to the top, slow and boring, and then wosssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, then it hits you.

Or like a jack in the box. Those things scare me.

So not an instant, DUDE! but more of a slower, wow, maybe this is actually true, and then when it does get you, its more than what you think it will be.

Maybe a Catapillar - Butterfly transformation. That would be a way to look at it.

[Raien]

But this is where my experience denouces that old myth. It happened over a number of years. It was gradual revelation, if that makes any sense. It wasn't an instant thing. It was more like a roller coaster, where you ride it to the top, slow and boring, and then wosssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, then it hits you.

The build-up doesn't really denounce the myth, it's just an additional stage to the process that I didn't mention. I mean, of course these revelations don't come from nowhere. People have to work the logic out, and then the revelation comes when all the pieces are put together. Sometimes you can understand something, but you aren't really aware of it until the revelation. At least, that's my experience with revelations.

[Goose]

So in your opinion, what would create a genuine spiritual experience, rather than a trick of the mind?

[Raien]

So in your opinion, what would create a genuine spiritual experience, rather than a trick of the mind?

I could not say, considering that the human mind is clearly capable of being tricked (as evidenced by hallucinations, hypnotism, and just plain gullibility). All I'm saying is that if every claimed spiritual experience sounds not only identical to each other, but to non-spiritual revelations as well, then to me that indicates a process of the human mind.

[Ransom]

I know im not in contro much, but ive been keeping up with this debate because of how much i enjoy the different ways you both put your arguments forward. (Reflectionist and Goose that is)

My general opinion on this subject is that no matter how repulsive people find the idea of God, or gods, it doesn't change the fact that religion (in western culture) has a predominantly positive effect on the individuals involved.
Iris Murdoch said:

"Religion provides devices for the purification of states of mind. the believer feels that he needs, and can receive, extra help. 'Not I, but Christ.' The real existence of such help is often used as an argument for the truth of religious doctrines. Of course prayer and sacraments may be 'misused' by the believer as mere instruments of consolation. But whatever one thinks of its theological context, it does seem that prayer can actually induce a better quality of consciousness and provide an energy for good action which would not otherwise be available."

I know that doesn't cover the main point of this topic, and i recognise that Murdoch is talking about a personal level of faith, and not the things that really do repulse one about theistic beliefs: how they act towards the general community that do not share their views. But I think there is significance here in light of the discussion between Goose and Reflectionist in regards to people who are repulsed by religious individuals even when these christians (or others) are not getting in their face about it, and are respectful of their standpoint, such as Goose.
However i am not going to assume, Reflectionist, that you are repulsed by Goose's beliefs and claims when you haven't actually said that.
I just find repulsion towards Christians and other religious groups solely on the basis that they are "misguided" or "full of pride and elitism" stupid. Based on what Murdoch has said, most religion (discounting radical, exploding-bomby-type beliefs) only makes an individual better and happier in themselves, which is only positive for the community.

So really. What does God really offer you that you actually can take to the bank? Something that you couldn't get somewhere else? Something you couldn't go out and get yourself?

Because I've found nothing yet.

But who decided that believing in a God is about getting stuff for yourself? Is religion just another service? Find the best and most quality God that offers the most perks?
That just seems to defeat the whole purpose of God and spirituality to me.

Edited by Ransom, 11 May 2009 - 10:13 AM.

[Reflectionist]

I meant it in the interest of why is belief in a God distinct from other, less inherently bigoted, ways you can garner hope?

[Nevermind]

Maybe it's just that it removes the human element: the common denominator in failure, betrayal, hopelessness, pretty much any negative aspect of our hyper-reality.

*shrugs*

Could be.

[Raien]

Reflectionist, may I suggest you consider nostalgia as a potential component that forms beliefs? People romanticise the things they encounter in their past, and these indescribable emotions (indescribable because of their subconscious nature and wholly personal attributes) can lead people to associations that could be considered spiritual. I've come to believe that people's enjoyment of the abstract (i.e. art) is a response to these romantic ideals, and the same sort of thing could apply to nature and spirituality.

In other words, people's choice of faith could be a fulfillment of nostalgia, as opposed to a belief that there is something wrong with the world.

PS: It's interesting to see that internet discussion about nostalgia is incredibly limited. There doesn't seem to be any recognition of the fact that nostalgia stretches back to earliest childhood memories, which in their most simplistic forms can still shape our perspective of the world in a profound way.

Edited by Raien, 11 May 2009 - 01:33 PM.

[Nevermind]

Romantic ideals are generally romanticised because people have yet to encounter them, though. This omits the realism of the situation and lets their innermost desires conjure the rest of the story. The romantic art period was composed of artists using visual stimuli to put ideas into peoples' heads and the response was reciprocated so well because the viewers hadn't experienced anything such as what the artwork suggested. This among other things was what gave the images such romantic spiritual escape in the first place.

Friedrich never actually stood atop a mountain peak above the clouds - especially not in such noble clothes as he appears to be wearing - and I most certainly have yet to do that. Still, my internal response to that particular piece was phenomenal.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 11 May 2009 - 01:35 PM.

[Raien]

Romantic ideals are generally romanticised because people have yet to encounter them, though. The romantic art period was composed of artists using visual stimuli to put ideas into peoples' heads and the response was reciprocated so well because the viewers hadn't experienced anything such as what the artwork suggested. This among other things was what gave the images such romantic spiritual escape in the first place.

Friedrich never actually stood atop a mountain peak above the clouds - especially not in such noble clothes as he appears to be wearing - and I most certainly have yet to do that. Still, my internal response to that particular piece was phenomenal.

Okay, maybe I had better explain my position.

I think that our earliest childhood memories can have a profound impact on our worldview because they define our first contact with the world. Considering the extremely limited knowledge that we possessed as young children, our nostalgic memories contain a sense of awe from learning about the world. Nostalgia and romanticism of the unknown thusly coincide at the earliest point of childhood recognition, and are inherently connected in our subconscious.

The question is, what distinguishes our love of repetition from our love of originality? I believe that it relates to our earliest contact with information. If you look at the tastes of art-lovers, they always revolve around the sensory information of a particular medium. With paintings, you get an admiration for shapes, textures; with film, you get an admiration for the use of camera and editing; with music, you get an admiration for particular sounds, tones, rhythm. These interests were obviously developed at the earliest age, where such things would be completely alien to young children. Later on in life, when the sensory information is established, more developed interests in character and emotion supercede it. Instead of appreciating music for its base properties, children appreciate how music romanticises characters and events in a narrative. Emotional abstracts replace sensory abstracts. That's why art-lovers are typically in a minority; their appreciation of the senses is strong enough that it has not been superceded by appreciation of emotion.

Now, since emotions are developed at a later stage in childhood, we can define emotions much more clearly in our society. We can recognise the position of love, hate, happiness, sadness and their appropriate contexts. We cannot do that with sensory information, and so we associate it with the undefined; the unknown. Our interest in the unknown is thusly constructed from nostalgic memories that we cannot define. So, I think our personal experiences with the spiritual are a product of this undefined response to sensory information, with which we connect with our defined understanding of emotions to create a sense of "looking beyond defined perception" or "opening your eyes".

Sorry if this is confusing. Please ask for clarification if you need it.

Edited by Raien, 11 May 2009 - 02:05 PM.

[Nevermind]

No, no. It's okay, you've clarified it enough. I just don't wholly agree with it

[Raien]

No, no. It's okay, you've clarified it enough. I just don't wholly agree with it

Well, I think it's fair to say that if romantic artists were purely interested in the unknown for its own sake, then that interest would be universal, wouldn't it? I mean, why do some people appreciate the unknown depicted in a painting, but not the unknown as depicted in sound? There has to be something in memory that generates interest in one art form but not another.

Edited by Raien, 11 May 2009 - 02:21 PM.

[Nevermind]

Is that not what progressive music is supposed to be? New genres and sub-genres constantly emerge because artists try and move beyond that which is familiar. To the majority it takes repetition and familiarity for them to enjoy it but to those few remaining, it is tantalising; tickling at senses from angles not felt before. This is a reflection of normal everyday living. The majority goes with repetition and what is familiar because they prioritise security whilst that aforesaid small group tends to lean towards discovery and experience.

Subconscious imprints of enjoyable memories do affect our judgement and perception of certain events, on that I agree. However - whether it be religion, science, art, biology, philosophy, psychology - the ideas of ascending, exceeding, progressing, surpassing, advancing, even outlasting, are ones that are inherent in all people whether they have had the joy of experiencing them or not. Once it becomes an experience though, it becomes a happy memory and whilst it may retain romantic notions, they will most likely not match the magnitude of their preconceived counterparts.

When people move out from beneath their security blankets and strive for the unknowns, they are acting upon their cognitive romantic ideals of what could or could not be out there, not spruced up memories of their childhood. In this, I guess another answer to Reflectionist's question is that people take a literal leap of faith and hope that maybe there is something there. What you (Reflectionist) call an inherently-bigoted placebo is nothing but a social side effect of the initial concept. And I really do agree that religion as it is today is just as you said it is. The distinction, though, lies in that the intended notion is an idea that truly does offer people something that cannot be found anywhere else in the world.

Science and all the others I mentioned do offer the same exhiliration of transcending that which we already know, so in a large sense these other paths can produce the same results. The spiritual side of things cannot be found through natural means though. The very basis of the whole thing is that it is supposed to be beyond this world. Thus, the ones searching for it and taking that leap of discovery, or faith, or hope, or whatever other synonyms you can find, are searching for something beyond this world, regardless of the joys and wonders it contains.

[Raien]

Subconscious imprints of enjoyable memories do affect our judgement and perception of certain events, on that I agree. However - whether it be religion, science, art, biology, philosophy, psychology - the ideas of ascending, exceeding, progressing, surpassing, advancing, even outlasting, are ones that are inherent in all people whether they have had the joy of experiencing them or not. Once it becomes an experience though, it becomes a happy memory and whilst it may retain romantic notions, they will most likely not match the magnitude of their preconceived counterparts.

When people move out from beneath their security blankets and strive for the unknowns, they are acting upon their cognitive romantic ideals of what could or could not be out there, not spruced up memories of their childhood. In this, I guess another answer to Reflectionist's question is that people take a literal leap of faith and hope that maybe there is something there. What you (Reflectionist) call an inherently-bigoted placebo is nothing but a social side effect of the initial concept. And I really do agree that religion as it is today is just as you said it is. The distinction, though, lies in that the intended notion is an idea that truly does offer people something that cannot be found anywhere else in the world.

But here's the thing; where do cognitive romantic ideals of the unknown come from? From what underlying source does one create a romantic ideal of the unknown? Yes, it's inherent to everyone, but it isn't universal to everything. What inspires a romantic ideal about a piece of art, but not a piece of music? Or vice versa? I say it's nostalgia that affects these choices.

For example, consider the group of players who loved Zelda: Ocarina of Time, but hated Zelda: Twilight Princess for being too similar to its predecessor. For this group, the factor that clearly distinguishes the first game from the second is originality, and thus this group wants that sense of originality replicated. This is a clear example of a nostalgic romanticisation of the unknown. So who's to say that other general interests in the unknown don't have nostalgic origins?

Edited by Raien, 11 May 2009 - 03:34 PM.

[Nevermind]

I say it's just different people being prone to different preferences. What appeals to some doesn't always appeal to others. We are individuals, so whilst the concept is universal, the response is not.

And the Zelda thing, you're right. They did want something original based off the memories of Ocarina. It wasn't the nostalgia they wanted, though. It was the idea of having something brand spanking new.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 11 May 2009 - 03:38 PM.

[Raien]

I say it's just different people being prone to different preferences. What appeals to some doesn't always appeal to others. We are individuals, so whilst the concept is universal, the response is not.

People are prone to different preferences, but WHY!? Nothing happens without a reason. We can establish that it's not biological (and neither is curiosity, btw, because it lacks a fixed action pattern), so it therefore must be cultural. Where do people pick up culture? From interaction with their environment. And where does that interaction start developing? In childhood.

And the Zelda thing, you're right. They did want something original based off the memories of Ocarina. It wasn't the nostalgia they wanted, though. It was the idea of having something brand spanking new.

It's the same thing! Why did these people want something brand spanking new from TP? Because of the way they felt when Nintendo offered them something brand spanking new with OoT! Think about it. You cannot anticipate the pleasure of discovery in a future product if you have not already experienced that pleasure. The promise of new pleasure in discovery is thus a promise that past pleasures in discovery will be replicated. Since the pleasure of discovery dates back to the first discovery in early childhood, we can establish that discovery is a nostalgic pleasure.

Edited by Raien, 11 May 2009 - 07:12 PM.

[Nevermind]

People are prone to different preferences, but WHY!? Nothing happens without a reason. We can establish that it's not biological (and neither is curiosity, btw, because it lacks a fixed action pattern), so it therefore must be cultural. Where do people pick up culture? From interaction with their environment. And where does that interaction start developing? In childhood.

Why does nothing happen without a reason? That is the very logic of ordinary life from which these types of people try to break free. Why can people not do just do something purely for the sake of doing it? Is it not good enough a reason that they do it because they want to. Because they are an individual with individual thought process and possess the capabilities of choosing for themselves. They just...WANT to.

It's the same thing! Why did these people want something brand spanking new from TP? Because of the way they felt when Nintendo offered them something brand spanking new with OoT! Think about it. You cannot anticipate the pleasure of discovery in a future product if you have not already experienced that pleasure. The promise of new pleasure in discovery is thus a promise that past pleasures in discovery will be replicated. Since the pleasure of discovery dates back to the first discovery in early childhood, we can establish that discovery is a nostalgic pleasure.

In that case, it may have been the same thing, yes. They were trying to replicate that feeling of something new because they enjoyed it last time and want to enjoy it again. But think of along the lines of something like a common mid-life crisis where a person who has indeed been caught inside a comfort zone just up and leaves and just wants to try something new JUST for the sake of having something completely different to what they have ever known. They generate these romantic ideals and at some point just decide to act. On a much more simpler level, think about the hot glass in a hotbox. The glass is hot, everyone knows it is hot, there is even a sign that says it is hot. Still, there are people that touch it anyway. They're not idiots, they just like the could-be's more than the should-be's. On a subconscious level they know it should be hot but to them, unless they touch it for themselves and confirm it is hot, there is the possibility that it COULD be something else other than hot.

As I said before naturally there SHOULD be a reason as to why people are prone to make the decisions that they do. Most of the time there is. But what if there is the instance where there is NOT? An instance where they just...decide to do it...regardless of cultural, environmental or psychological background.

[Raien]

Why does nothing happen without a reason? That is the very logic of ordinary life from which these types of people try to break free. Why can people not do just do something purely for the sake of doing it? Is it not good enough a reason that they do it because they want to. Because they are an individual with individual thought process and possess the capabilities of choosing for themselves. They just...WANT to.

I see this is turning into a debate about determinism. I'll just outline my point thus; I think any adverse reactions to the world are brought about by subtle, subconscious thoughts that have nested in our minds for some time. You'd be surprised at what you can remember if you look hard enough into your own interests. I don't think there is a single thought that just comes out of nowhere, for the same reason that I don't expect a bowl of fresh fruit to just pop out of thin air. But that doesn't negate the existence of choice; it just establishes that choice is not some magical transcendental force for intelligent life.

Edited by Raien, 12 May 2009 - 05:24 AM.

[Ransom]

Well it definitely works with the marketing strategy of Mcdonalds.

[Nevermind]

I see this is turning into a debate about determinism. I'll just outline my point thus; I think any adverse reactions to the world are brought about by subtle, subconscious thoughts that have nested in our minds for some time. You'd be surprised at what you can remember if you look hard enough into your own interests. I don't think there is a single thought that just comes out of nowhere, for the same reason that I don't expect a bowl of fresh fruit to just pop out of thin air. But that doesn't negate the existence of choice; it just establishes that choice is not some magical transcendental force for intelligent life.

Okay, fair enough. In response then, to finalise my own point, I don't believe that every thought and idea we conjure up can only be built upon a past experience. The whole term of "what if" is more than a little dedicated just to this very same concept. I do believe we make choices based on our past experiences because we are prone to choosing the safe and/or familiar route. This does not mean that we cannot and will not make an impulse decision based on nothing more than wonderment of unknown results.

Excuse the double negative.

[Raien]

Okay, fair enough. In response then, to finalise my own point, I don't believe that every thought and idea we conjure up can only be built upon a past experience. The whole term of "what if" is more than a little dedicated just to this very same concept. I do believe we make choices based on our past experiences because we are prone to choosing the safe and/or familiar route. This does not mean that we cannot and will not make an impulse decision based on nothing more than wonderment of unknown results.

Lazurukeel, why is it that post after post, you keep insisting that my argument distinguishes the "wonderment of the unknown" from "past experience"? It's not a case of either/or; they are inherently the same thing. I agree that people make impulse decisions based on nothing more than wonderment of the unknown. But "wonderment of the unknown" is, in exclusion of everything else, a product of subconscious past experience.

Edited by Raien, 12 May 2009 - 06:29 AM.

[Nevermind]

Because if it is "past experience" it is not "unknown". That's why.

[Raien]

Because if it is "past experience" it is not "unknown". That's why.

Now I see where you're getting confused. You're confusing the memory of an event with the memory of an emotional response. They're not the same thing at all.

The unknown is the event.
The known is the emotional response to that event, derived from past experience and consequent established preferences.

When a man interested in art comes across an unknown piece, the emotional response is not going to be completely alien to him. If it was alien, he would not seek interest in the unknown piece.

[Nevermind]

Or he may seek interest BECAUSE it is alien.

[Raien]

Or he may seek interest BECAUSE it is alien.

Right, and what drives the man to seek interest in alien things? What goes through your mind that drives you to seek interest in alien things?

[Nevermind]

Hot alien ass.














...also, I want to try something new. I want to push myself to the limits of my sensory capabilities. I want to roll that way. I want to do it because I haven't done it before. I have no idea of the outcome but hot diggity I'll try!

Edited by Lazurukeel, 12 May 2009 - 11:02 AM.

[Steel Samurai]

So essentially, what you're saying raien, is that people seek out the unknown because seeking out the unknown previously gave them a positive emotional response?

"I think I'll try a new restaurant, because the last time I tried a new restaurant the food tasted good!"

"I want a new original zelda, because the last time I had a new original zelda, it was cool!"

But then you get into a chick and egg scenario.

I think that exploration and trying new things is inextricably part of human nature, and doesn't really need to have a behaviouristic reason.

[Raien]

I think that exploration and trying new things is inextricably part of human nature, and doesn't really need to have a behaviouristic reason.

I would agree if there was science to indicate that curiosity is a human instinct, but from what I've read, it can't be an instinct because it doesn't have a fixed action pattern. It therefore has to be behaviouristic, and my suggestion is that it relates to initial displays of emotion.

...also, I want to try something new. I want to push myself to the limits of my sensory capabilities. I want to roll that way. I want to do it because I haven't done it before. I have no idea of the outcome but hot diggity I'll try!

But why do you want to do these things? You're using circular logic here.

"I like to try new things because I like to try new things."

[Nevermind]

You're telling me "I like to try new things because they remind me of that time I never actually did that thing" is not circular?

People like to break the norm. Amazingly for no other reason than because they can and want to.

[Steel Samurai]

I think that exploration and trying new things is inextricably part of human nature, and doesn't really need to have a behaviouristic reason.

I would agree if there was science to indicate that curiosity is a human instinct, but from what I've read, it can't be an instinct because it doesn't have a fixed action pattern. It therefore has to be behaviouristic, and my suggestion is that it relates to initial displays of emotion.

And this is where core axioms come into play. I don't think it's instinctual, I think it's spiritual, in the sense that it's in a part of human nature separate from instinct driven behavior. Which of course can never be validated or invalidated by science.