What is 'spirit'?

[Beth]

Hi,

I'm relatively new here, so I hope I'm posting this in the right arena.

I've been giving some thought lately to things of a spiritual nature. Much of the paranormal has ties to the spiritual and as I've learned more about it, I've been rethinking my previous viewpoints. I haven't come to any firm conclusions yet. I was wondering what other people here think about 'spirit' and 'spirituality'.

If human beings all possess something known as a 'spirit', what is it? Presumably, it has no physical existance, but I am not of the opinion that intangibles aren't real. For example, one's reputation isn't tangible either, but I believe in the existance of such, um, 'things'.

However, 'spirit' and 'spirituality' are, well, there isn't a firm definition for such concepts and I'm interested in hearing other peoples point of view on them. What, exactly, do you mean when you discuss such matters? What do you think other people mean by such terms?

Thanks.

Beth

 

[Anathema]

My opinion is that "spirit" is a wishful elaboration on "consciousness" --- it's the sum of neurological activity in an individual, with a lot of hopeful symbolism and superstition added on top. It is so emotionally difficult for humans to conceive of "ceasing to exist", most cultures construct a kind of symbolic "essence" that transcends the phycial, and call it "spirit" or something equivalent.

We'd love to believe that "spirit" is some indestructible part of us that goes on to live in the "spirit world" after we've died. We'd love to believe our lost dearly departed are somewhere "out there", disembodied, waiting to be reunited with us is eternal bliss. This emotional desire is so strong and so nearly universal, we have to label it something. "Spirit" fills the bill.

 

[AtheistArchon]

- Spirits = alcoholic beverages.


















- What?

 

[AtheistArchon]

- Okay, a real answer. Keep in mind I'm an evil atheist type person and an extremely cynical person.

- The terms "spirit", "spirutual", "spirituality", and so on, within the xian culture, are horribly vague (at least to me, an outsider critical of the system). They appear to me to be useful placeholders for what would otherwise require firm definitions:

Aunt Bea: "The spirit came over me!"

Rev. Joe: "I feel we need to have more spiritual interaction in schools."

Pastor Bill: "You will know god exists when you get in touch with your spirituality."

- To me, these words are essentially nonsense words; they may as well equate to warm fuzzy feelings, nothing more. Kittens make me feel the same way, Angelina Jolie... to a greater extent. And while Angie may indeed be a conundurum to most people, there's little argument that she exists and that my warm fuzzies can be traced down to very certain attributes.

- On the other hand, I feel Carl Sagan did use the term correctly when he said he felt a distinct spiritualism while observing the universe (and while doing science... learning more about the universe). He never equated it with supernaturalism though, he simply described it as an emotion: aka warm fuzzies. How can one not learn about the size and grandeur of the universe and not be awed?

- I think that most religious "feelings" are just that... emotions. Spirits as in ghosts or spectral entities are off the list completely, and there are no "spiritual powers" like faith healing either, that much is plain.

 

[lifegazer]

Hi,

Hello.

If human beings all possess something known as a 'spirit', what is it? Presumably, it has no physical existance, but I am not of the opinion that intangibles aren't real. For example, one's reputation isn't tangible either, but I believe in the existance of such, um, 'things'.

Whether you realise it or not, this is not a simple question to answer.
Firstly, you say that the spirit, presumably, has no physical existence. But have you ever pondered the nature of physical existence itself? Are you aware that the things within your awareness are mere sensory representations of things and that we have no way to confirm the actual reality of physical entities beyond our abstract grasp of them?
So if I were to ask you to describe the nature of 'physicality', you wouldn't have a philosophical leg to stand on, so to speak, because it's impossible to describe a reality of physicality. We can only define things with reference to our inner experience (sensations) of them.

We have to be careful when we use the word 'tangible' and realise that we aren't relating that word to something that has actual existence - noting, as explained, that it is impossible to experience anything beyond ones inner-sense of it. This is important to note since the "intangibility of the spirit"
is actually no less intangible than the "things" which we in fact define as tangible.

'The spirit' gets a bad press in forums like this, yet it seems much more plausible that the spirit of whatever it is that you are would be more susceptible to accurate definition than something that is really physical. Why? Because whatever it is that you are can confirm it's own existence and ponder it's own reality via contemplation of it's nature... whereas you cannot actually experience a physical reality, least of all define one.

 

[Beth]

My opinion is that "spirit" is a wishful elaboration on "consciousness" --- it's the sum of neurological activity in an individual, with a lot of hopeful symbolism and superstition added on top.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, but this only changes the noun from 'spirit' to 'consciousness', another intangible that's difficult to pin down. However, it does lead to another interesting way to consider the question: Is the whole of all neurological activity in an individual greater than the sum of the parts?

It is so emotionally difficult for humans to conceive of "ceasing to exist", most cultures construct a kind of symbolic "essence" that transcends the phycial, and call it "spirit" or something equivalent.

We'd love to believe that "spirit" is some indestructible part of us that goes on to live in the "spirit world" after we've died. We'd love to believe our lost dearly departed are somewhere "out there", disembodied, waiting to be reunited with us is eternal bliss. This emotional desire is so strong and so nearly universal, we have to label it something. "Spirit" fills the bill.

I find it at least equally plausible to consider the fact that most (all?) cultures recognize and name this "essence" of human beings as an indication that this is a real aspect of ourselves rather than a universal reaction to the fear of death. Perhaps you're correct, but I don't find it a convincing explanation of the universal idea of a 'spirit'. Thank you anyway.

Beth

 

[Beth]

Re: Re: What is 'spirit'?

Hello.

Whether you realise it or not, this is not a simple question to answer.

Yes, I realize it's not a simple question. It's one I've been mulling over for quite some time now.

Firstly, you say that the spirit, presumably, has no physical existence. But have you ever pondered the nature of physical existence itself? Are you aware that the things within your awareness are mere sensory representations of things and that we have no way to confirm the actual reality of physical entities beyond our abstract grasp of them?

Yes, I've pondered such ideas. I find that the reality of physical entities is consistent enough from one person to the next to accept the physical existance of things other than myself.

We have to be careful when we use the word 'tangible' and realise that we aren't relating that word to something that has actual existence - noting, as explained, that it is impossible to experience anything beyond ones inner-sense of it. This is important to note since the "intangibility of the spirit"
is actually no less intangible than the "things" which we in fact define as tangible.

I am thinking of tangible 'things' as having a manifestation in particular arrangements of atoms that have some continuity over time. Intangibles have an existance without such a physical manifestation. At least, that's as good a definition as I can do off the cuff. I hope that will suffice. I think most people have a reasonably consistent and accurate idea of the difference I am thinking of without spelling it out too precisely.

Now, intangibles are always hard to define, but I currently have more uncertainty about what is meant by human 'spirit' than I'm comfortable with, so I'm collecting other people's opinions and trying them out to see how they fit with my own experiences and ideas.

Beth

 

[Z]

Hi, and welcome, Beth.

Before you ponder lifegazer too much, consider that any discussion has to take place within the reality which we can perceive. All that we can know is what we know through our senses, and what we can think of. Those things which are 'tangible' are referred to as such within our perceptual reality. Likewise, things which are 'intangible' are referred to as such within our perceptual reality. So there is no need to assume that an intangible concept such as 'spirit' is on equal footing to a tangible concept such as 'matter', just because the entire basis of our perceptions may not be what we think it is.

On to your question:

From a purely instinctual and metaphysical perspective, I think all things have a 'spirit' - an unreal, intangible aspect which can, in some way, by some means, influence and affect tangible things. I believe that human 'spirit' may very well exist, in some part as an undetectible animating aspect that remains tied to the physical so long as the brain is relatively functional, and that this 'spirit', once freed of the physical, may well break apart, reform, attach to something new, etc. That is, I think that 'spirit' may not be a persistant phenomenon, but rather a very dynamic one.

From a purely materialistic and scientific perspective, 'Spirit' is a term used to comfort people into believing that something really matters, that death isn't the end of the process. It cannot be located nor measured, and therefore, cannot be verified to exist, as of yet. Further, there is no valid reason at this point to believe that some 'spirit' exists, as there is no valid evidence of any 'spirit' as such.

Somehow, I manage both beliefs at the same time within myself. Being dichotimous in nature is surely a helpful thing, yes?

((OT: lifegazer, are you ready yet to address the errors and fallacies in your prior posts, or is it too soon after the holiday to start in on you? I look forward to your next thread, jester!))

 

[Beth]

- Okay, a real answer. Keep in mind I'm an evil atheist type person and an extremely cynical person.

- The terms "spirit", "spirutual", "spirituality", and so on, within the xian culture, are horribly vague (at least to me, an outsider critical of the system). They appear to me to be useful placeholders for what would otherwise require firm definitions:

I'll agree with you that such concepts are not adequately defined. I'm not necessarily thinking of the Christian beliefs though.

Aunt Bea: "The spirit came over me!"

Rev. Joe: "I feel we need to have more spiritual interaction in schools."

Pastor Bill: "You will know god exists when you get in touch with your spirituality."

- To me, these words are essentially nonsense words; they may as well equate to warm fuzzy feelings, nothing more. Kittens make me feel the same way, Angelina Jolie... to a greater extent.

The 'spirit' you're talking about here are not what I meant by 'human spirit'. I'm thinking of a concept more akin to the word 'soul' or perhaps 'consciousness' as one response put it.

- On the other hand, I feel Carl Sagan did use the term correctly when he said he felt a distinct spiritualism while observing the universe (and while doing science... learning more about the universe). He never equated it with supernaturalism though, he simply described it as an emotion: aka warm fuzzies. How can one not learn about the size and grandeur of the universe and not be awed?

Again, a different 'spirit' than that I was thinking of, though closer than before. Perhaps a reasonable approximately for 'spirituality'. I don't know.

- I think that most religious "feelings" are just that... emotions. Spirits as in ghosts or spectral entities are off the list completely, and there are no "spiritual powers" like faith healing either, that much is plain.

Well, it's a reasonable opinion. Just not one that I share. I think the 'human spirit' is more than simply another emotion. Thanks.

Beth

 

[Mercutio]

Beth

Consider how you learned the term in the first place (or, of course, how any of us did). Certain acts, which you saw others engaging in, were labeled "spiritual" by those who were teaching you your language (both formally and more importantly, informally, especially family and friends). Depending on your experience, these things could have been someone crying while singing a hymn, someone praying, someone meditating, or listening to music, or any of the multitude of things you now call "spiritual". (as a side note, notice that since you have no access to these models' hidden feelings, the only thing you are learning from is their behaviors--the tears might have been caused by allergies.) You also have people telling you labels for things which you, yourself are doing (again, praying, or listening to music, or whatever) which they think are "spiritual" in nature. (again, note that they have no access to your feelings, so they may label as spiritual something which may have had no real meaning for you, or miss something that was very meaningful.)

As the result of your learning of the term "spiritual", it has come to represent two things, both rather fuzzily defined, and both categories rather than distinct things. It represents a category of behaviors you see others do, and a category of feelings you experience yourself. These are necessarily fuzzy categories, because the people who have taught you the labels have had no access to the feelings of the people involved, and what is more, the categories are fuzzy because it is impossible for two people to have had exactly the same experience in learning the terms--your "spirituality" was learned differently from mine, so the behaviors subsumed by that category label are different. Of course, shared culture will produce very similar definitions--the more shared experience, the closer the definitions--but since there is no publicly available referent for "spirituality" (as there is for, say, "red" or "triangle"), there will always be fuzziness inherent in the definition.

So, what is spirituality? It is a useful word, a category label for a group of behaviors which seem to go together. Strong emotion seems to play a part, and perhaps a sense of wonder, and a bit of the unknown (by this I mean merely that the feeling seems sometimes stronger than the situation seems to call for, and we look for a reason that we feel a strong emotion. If we cannot see one there--"oh, I had too much coffee, or mushrooms, or that special someone"--then we may well call it "spiritual".)

Note--this does not deny the biochemical perspective. As I said in this thread, the two are independent levels of analysis. I prefer mine.

Oh, and welcome to the forum! Look around, I think you will find many threads addressing some of what you are looking at...

 

[lifegazer]

Before you ponder lifegazer too much, consider that any discussion has to take place within the reality which we can perceive.

The point is that "what we perceive" is within the awareness of whatever it is that we are. The logical conclusion of this is that we can only confirm the reality (the actual existence) of whatever it is that we are.
There is no perceived reality. Even if there is an external reality, it is not that which exists within us as sensations-of-things.
In other words, your statement is philosophically naive and any [rational] discussion has to take place within the reality which we can confirm.
If you want to turn this discussion into one of preferences and beliefs, then it loses all philosophical value anyway. However, the truth is that nobody can confirm the existence of anything other than whatever it is that they are.

All that we can know is what we know through our senses, and what we can think of. Those things which are 'tangible' are referred to as such within our perceptual reality. Likewise, things which are 'intangible' are referred to as such within our perceptual reality. So there is no need to assume that an intangible concept such as 'spirit' is on equal footing to a tangible concept such as 'matter',

Given that nobody can confirm the existence of anything other than whatever it is that they are, I would suggest that the only ~tangible~ (as confirmed) thing in existence, is yourself (whatever it is that you are).

My point to Beth is that we label "things" as tangible without really knowing whether they exist or not. Yet when it comes to defining ourselves (beyond perceived physical qualities), we like to use the word 'intangible'.
Ironic really.

 

[lifegazer]

Yes, I've pondered such ideas. I find that the reality of physical entities is consistent enough from one person to the next to accept the physical existance of things other than myself.

The point is though, Beth, that you cannot confirm the existence of "other entities", since your experience of such takes place within your (whatever it is that you are) awareness.
Frustrating, I know, yet a philosophical fact.
As such, your comment doesn't really mean anything. I might as well say that since everybody in my dream last-night, could fly, that 'flying' has been verified as a reality. At least, it was in that particular "sensory show".

" We have to be careful when we use the word 'tangible' and realise that we aren't relating that word to something that has actual existence - noting, as explained, that it is impossible to experience anything beyond ones inner-sense of it. This is important to note since the "intangibility of the spirit"
is actually no less intangible than the "things" which we in fact define as tangible."

I am thinking of tangible 'things' as having a manifestation in particular arrangements of atoms that have some continuity over time.

Try and define an atom, Beth. As soon as you get to the "wave/particle duality" part, you'll soon understand that mankind has no grasp of the reality of matter.
The top scientists don't have a clue what "definite matter" is, Beth - least of all whether it actually exists beyond our inner-experiences of it.

Intangibles have an existance without such a physical manifestation.

What you mean is that so-called 'intangibles' are not experienced via sensation, as every-thing else is. However, until you acknowledge that our so-called 'tangibles' are actually unconfirmed-realities and that whatever it is that we are is the actual reality behind all of these abstract inner-experiences, you probably won't get my point.

At least, that's as good a definition as I can do off the cuff. I hope that will suffice. I think most people have a reasonably consistent and accurate idea of the difference I am thinking of without spelling it out too precisely.

Well it depends upon how deep you want to go with your original question. If you're just willing to accept - without rational confirmation - that "other entities" exist, then you cannot lose or learn, Beth.
... If, however, you are willing to question EVERY belief you ever had and just concentrate upon the facts, then you might go further than you ever thought it was possible to proceed.

 

[Z]

Never mind the Jester, Beth. This is his usual drivel. "Nothing exists, only God exists, nothing is real, there is no reality, there is no perceptual reality, logic doesn't exist, blah blah blah."

He's already admitted that he doesn't use apply logic while pondering his philosophy. Hence, his philosophy is not based on sound reasoning. Further, his conclusions do not follow from his premise - not one bit, in fact - and his understanding of any concepts regarding science, mathematics, or even basic linguistics is shockingly limited.

Consider: this is the same poster who thinks that infinite space demands infinite distances to exist between fixed points. Who thinks that 'quantum nonlocality' is a FACT that proves that space does not exist. Who thinks that there is one system of logic that applies to our world, and another that applies to God. Who believes that nothing we see or seem is real, and that God is an absolute singularity, timeless and indivisible, having no features or functions.

Rational, indeed.

Now, Jester, why don't you go put your bell cap on and prepare to entertain us with threads on why DNA proves that animals don't exist, or how two-dimensional pictures just can't exist in 7-dimensional space, or how we're deluding ourselves into believing that things which we have no awareness of exist or have any effect on us. Go on, child - dance for us. Amuse us.

 

[AtheistArchon]

Well, it's a reasonable opinion. Just not one that I share. I think the 'human spirit' is more than simply another emotion. Thanks.

- Perhaps we can approach from a different angle then: how would you define "spirit"? Or "spirituality"? Or, at least, what definition did you have in mind?

- I couched my answer in xian terminology because that's usually the most popular interpretation, but I also reiterate my first point... the terms are usually purposefully vague, and unless they are meant to be used synonomously with "Ooo, warm fuzzies!", i.e. an ordinary (if perhaps thrilling) emotional response, then I simply don't know what they mean. Ergo, I ask people all the time to define these terms.

- It sounds to me like this is pretty much the question you're asking us, however.

 

[Beth]

Hi,

I just wanted to say thanks. All the different viewpoints reflected in everyone's responses have given me much food for thought.

Beth

 

[Dr Adequate]

One thing I've noticed looking at New Age rubbish is that people use "spiritual" to mean "unsubstantiated". So, for example, I am told not to mock New Age healing, because I "shouldn't mock people's spiritual beliefs" (I don't see why not, but that's another question). I try to find out what's spiritual about these beliefs. Is belief in the healing powers of penecillin spiritual? No. Crystal healing? Yes. Vaccination? No. Traditional Chinese acupunture? Yes. And the difference between the last two? Well, on the one hand, we have the belief that sticking needles into people can bring health benefits, but on the other hand... oh. Oh, right.

What makes one of them "spiritual" is that one of them works, and the other is supported by faith alone --- is believed in without evidence: which makes it like a religion. But the connotations of a life of piety, devotion and self-sacrifice are entirely gone: nowadays, a person is more "spiritual" than me just by believing, with no evidence, some stupid thing which I don't. As such, it has become (without the knowledge of people who describe themselves as "spiritual") a synonym for "gullible", and should be scrapped.

So, roughly:

Spiritual, adj. : (1) How gullible people describe themselves instead of saying gullible, because it has better connnotations. (2) Deeply religious; devoted to a life of good works, devotion and religious contemplation (obsolete).

And it is from the second, obsolete meaning, that the first meaning leeches its good connotations. Nonetheless, there is nothing spiritual, in the old sense, about a book which tells me how to become rich, even if it does recommend ineffective, purile magical spells as a methodology.

 

[epepke]

I've noticed, over the past few decades, that I can never figure out what people mean by the word "spiritual."

I'm not particularly stupid, at least compared to other humans, so I've developed a hypothesis. It is that people use the word "spiritual" to describe things that they don't understand, either.

People don't understand how a lump of meat could have consciousness, so they call it "spirit." A thousand years ago, before people understood photoreceptors and plant hormones and stuff like that, the opening of each flower was considered "spirit" as well.

 

[Iacchus]

Hi,

I just wanted to say thanks. All the different viewpoints reflected in everyone's responses have given me much food for thought.

Beth

Oh, here's a thread I started on, What Does "Spirit" Mean? ...

There are actually several definitions of spirit here. First of all you have the spiritual world itself, which exists in the spiritual dimension. Just as you and I now live in the material which, is part of the the material universe or, dimension. So this is one aspect of what spirit means. Another aspect would be that of our soul which, is our own spirit (compared to our material body in the material world) that ultimately resides in the spiritual world/dimension when we pass on. In other words it's our soul (as a spirit) which interacts with the spiritual world. A final aspect of the spirit would be the ultimate aspect itself, God, who rules above the heavens and earth and allows His Spirit to flow into all things. So we are all a part of God (His Spirit) in that respect. While it's this influx into all things which we deem as the Holy Spirit.