Spiritualism

Originally posted by jaywill
All man needs to know about death, or at least the MOST important information we need, has been given to the world by the one who died and rose - Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ and the Bible has told all mankind what is important to know about death.

We need to listen to Jesus Christ. We do not need to try to contact the dead and be led astray by deceiving demonic spirits.

I just mentioned the most common definitions of the word "spiritualism" according with well respected dictionaries of the English language, jaywill. Over here I am talking about "spiritualism" strictly under philosophical terms ("the power of the spirit, the quality or state of being spiritual for philosophical purposes"😉. No theology, no theosophy. Just philosophy!

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh, I should have post this post earlier, thank you for the question🙂

In philosophy "spiritualism" is the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that "spirit is the sole reality" (for example check the Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English/ 2009, originally published by Oxford University Press/ 2009). Therefore the basic p ...[text shortened]... repeat that at this thread I refer to the spiritualism under philosophical terms.

Then philosophically speaking, do you believe it's prudent to rely on man made definitions of what is spiritual in order to arrive at the truth about spiritual matters?

For example: How would one know for sure that a medium was channeling the spirit of a dead loved one and not the spirit of some other individual posing as the dearly departed?


"In philosophy "spiritualism" is the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter,..."

Obviously it does. We can see matter.(although I personally believe that matter and spirit are in some way tied together) If the spirit is distinct from matter, and therefore invisible, how does one trust what they think they know about the spirit to be true?

We live in a world where there are a myriad of sources claiming to have spiritual knowledge that contradict each other. One school of thought says this, and another that.

So again I ask, how do you know?

Originally posted by josephw
Then philosophically speaking, do you believe it's prudent to rely on man made definitions of what is spiritual in order to arrive at the truth about spiritual matters?

For example: How would one know for sure that a medium was channeling the spirit of a dead loved one and not the spirit of some other individual posing as the dearly departed?


[b]"In ...[text shortened]... her. One school of thought says this, and another that.

So again I ask, how do you know?

Oh, you still understand not and you have to read again all of my posts here from the beginning in order to get in grips with the conversation. But anyway I will explain again:

At this thread I am talking about spiritualism strictly by philosophical terms, not religious terms -spiritualism is primary a philosophical term. The definition that you offer is different and philosophically flawed, for is related with religion.

Spiritualism for the philosopher is a concept that has nothing to do with the theological/ theosophist concept of spiritualism. “Spiritualism” for the philosopher is just “the power of the spirit/ mind” and it has nothing to do with the so called "communication with the spirits of the dead people, of the so called daemons, of the so called god” etc. The philosopher uses his spiritualism (the power of the spirit/ the power of the mind) in order to become able to consciously break through beyond the barriers of the thought. Thanks to this ability the philosopher conceives the abstract ideas "as they are".

Regarding your question “Then philosophically speaking, do you believe it's prudent to rely on man made definitions of what is spiritual in order to arrive at the truth about spiritual matters?”, I reply that of course it is prudent to rely on man made definitions, and also that it is the sole way the Human can follow. The Human is the agent who makes anyway the definitions.

Regarding your last question, I “know” when I know because I used the method of evaluation of the mind, according with philosophical and scientific standards in order to understand the nature of everything -and therefore I know. This knowledge of mine is ever changing and under constant reconsideration, or is relatively stable according with the evaluation of the mind, according with the ability of the philosopher and according with the progress of the science at each specific scientific field. In addition there are issues that they remain unknown to the Human for the time being; in the future the Human may or may not find the answers regarding these issues.

Nothing Holy😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh, you still understand not and you have to read again all of my posts here from the beginning in order to get in grips with the conversation. But anyway I will explain again:

At this thread I am talking about spiritualism strictly by philosophical terms, not religious terms -spiritualism is primary a philosophical term. The definition that you offe ...[text shortened]... e future the Human may or may not find the answers regarding these issues.

Nothing Holy😵

I'm sorry if it appears that I am not following in the conversation. Perhaps not. But I am singling out certain statements that you are making for clarification in the hope that I can engage you in something I think I see as a flaw in your reasoning. I'm not arguing, I'm just conversing.


"The Human is the agent who makes anyway the definitions."

Are you absolutely sure about this? Are you saying that we humans define reality, and subsequently are the architechs of our own destiny.

If so, are you absolutely sure you have enough definitions (information) to make that determination?

Originally posted by josephw
I'm sorry if it appears that I am not following in the conversation. Perhaps not. But I am singling out certain statements that you are making for clarification in the hope that I can engage you in something I think I see as a flaw in your reasoning. I'm not arguing, I'm just conversing.


[b]"The Human is the agent who makes anyway the definitions." ...[text shortened]... e you absolutely sure you have enough definitions (information) to make that determination?[/b]

I really enjoy the conversation, maybe is the language barrier that makes me sound somehow nervous although I am not🙂
And anytime I beg for the strongest possible criticism to my opinions, for a real conversation is the best crash-test for my philosophy. I have to know when I am stranded or not aware of serious facts, so you are more than welcome.

So, yes, I am absolutely sure that the Human defines "reality". He does it using his own mind. Who else can define the reality I understand as Reality with my own mind but Myself? There are things I understand and things I understand not, and there is a whole palette between the understanding and the non understanding.

However it seems to me that the Human is not the sole agent of her/ his own destiny.

Originally posted by black beetle
I really enjoy the conversation, maybe is the language barrier that makes me sound somehow nervous although I am not🙂
And anytime I beg for the strongest possible criticism to my opinions, for a real conversation is the best crash-test for my philosophy. I have to know when I am stranded or not aware of serious facts, so you are more than welcome.

...[text shortened]... nding.

However it seems to me that the Human is not the sole agent of her/ his own destiny.

I enjoy a good debate (conversation) as well. That is untill they start insulting me.


In one sense I agree that we humans do define reality for ourselves.
But defining reality means using what information we have while knowing we have very little of the information available.

With that thought in mind, I argue that to define reality and give definition to it, without all the information, one would have to continually modify one's definitions as new information is added.
Meaning, then, that there are no absolute truths.

Asigning definition without absolute truth leads to nowhere.

Originally posted by josephw
I enjoy a good debate (conversation) as well. That is untill they start insulting me.


In one sense I agree that we humans do define reality for ourselves.
But defining reality means using what information we have while knowing we have very little of the information available.

With that thought in mind, I argue that to define reality and give defini ...[text shortened]... t there are no absolute truths.

Asigning definition without absolute truth leads to nowhere.

OK, let's check it out;

I walk on a path and I define that I walk on this specific path. I know nothing regarding the trip itself -for me it is meaniglesss for I decided just to keep on walking.
So step by step I notice the lanscape and I create a map of whatever I see with the knowledge that my map includes solely whatever I have noticed, and that therefore there are other landsapes elsewhere too. I do this using solely my mind and my senses -I do this using the potential of mine.

The further I go on my path, the most I see and the most I notice. And I remember whatever I notice, and I am able to describe to anybody my trip step by step too.

Therefore, in the given reality of the landscape that I am crossing through my path I notice solely whatever I am aware of, because I am limited by my senses, and also I am aware of the fact that my knowledge is limited. Thus I define "reality".

If we agree up to here, we may go further😵

Originally posted by black beetle
OK, let's check it out;

I walk on a path and I define that I walk on this specific path. I know nothing regarding the trip itself -for me it is meaniglesss for I decided just to keep on walking.
So step by step I notice the lanscape and I create a map of whatever I see with the knowledge that my map includes solely whatever I have noticed, and that ...[text shortened]... knowledge is limited. Thus I define "reality".

If we agree up to here, we may go further😵

The path we walk is this world.
What we percieve through our senses are the signs.
How we interpret the signs determines how we define the path.

If our interpretation of the signs is flawed, our definition of reality is flawed.

The point is, defining the path without absolute truth will lead to confusion.

Originally posted by josephw
The path we walk is this world.
What we percieve through our senses are the signs.
How we interpret the signs determines how we define the path.

If our interpretation of the signs is flawed, our definition of reality is flawed.

The point is, defining the path without absolute truth will lead to confusion.

Nope!

The physical world around us is the World 1. The world of the psychism of the Human is the World 2. And the world of the consiousness and of the ideas, theories right and false of any kind (scientific, philosophical and religious/ theological theories and ideas included) is the World 3.

The Human defines World 1 through both World 2 and World 3.
And the World 1 is constantly transformed due to our evolution through both the World 2 and the World 3. This is BTW the reason why the idea and the knowledge we have Today for the World 1 is quite different than the idea and the knowledge we had in the past for the World 1.

Therefore, what we percieve through our senses is the "reality" as We understand it solely thanks to our senses, and therefore this "reality" is just an indicator of our physical and mental abilities. However, through the evaluation of the mind, a method that leads to the evolution of the Science and of the Philosophy, we are aware of the fact that our senses reveal not the "reality" in full.

But this has nothing to do with the way we determine the "way" itself. And this happens because we have the knowledge that a "flower" by the side of our "way" is a flower, although the word "flower" is not the flower itself.

Therefore methinks that "absolute truth" as you pose it is a delusion, for you cannot attribute a "meaning/ message" when you see/ think of the "flower"/ flower. I assure you that when I see a daisy I see a daisy -an object "different" than myself and at the same time "identical" to myself; at the same time I understand that the daisy is just another emanation of life. This is the way I "define" "reality" regarding the daisy by the side of my way😵

What deity? What corresponds to that word, apart from the common definition? Can you use that word simply assuming it has but one accepted meaning, a fact a priori?

Is not reality in fact the sum total of the greatest consensus of which we are capable linguistically to describe that of which we come to be aware?

Is that why Einstein said "There are two different conceptions about the nature of the universe -the world as a unity dependent on humanity, and the world as a reality independent of the human factor. ... I cannot prove that scientific truth must be conceived as a truth that is valid independent of humanity; but I believe it firmly. I believe, for instance, that the Pythagorean theorem in geometry states something that is approximately true, independent of the existence of man. Anyway, if there is a reality independent of man, there is also a truth relative to this reality; and in the same way the negation of the first engenders a negation of the existence of the latter. ... The problem begins whether truth is independent of our consciousness. ... Even in our everyday life, we feel compelled to ascribe a reality independent of man to the objects we use. We do this to connect the experiences of our senses in a reasonable way. For instance, if nobody is in this house, yet that table remains where it is.
... Our natural point of view in regard to the existence of truth apart from humanity cannot be explained or proved, but it is a belief which nobody can lack - no primitive beings even. We attribute to truth a superhuman objectivity, it is indispensable for us, this reality which is independent of our existence and our experience and our mind - though we cannot say what it means."

Thus, when a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, Einstein believes it must make a sound just as it would were he there to perceive it.

I think Einstein's concept closer to that of Spinoza than any other philosophical concept of relaity of which I am aware.

Originally posted by Scriabin
What deity? What corresponds to that word, apart from the common definition? Can you use that word simply assuming it has but one accepted meaning, a fact a priori?

Is not reality in fact the sum total of the greatest consensus of which we are capable linguistically to describe that of which we come to be aware?

Is that why Einstein said "There are tw ...[text shortened]... loser to that of Spinoza than any other philosophical concept of relaity of which I am aware.

It seems to me that reality goes beyond the sum total of the greatest consensus of which we are capable linguistically to describe, for there are many levels of understanding according the evaluation of the mind.

Regarding the rest ideas of yours, we agree🙂

Originally posted by black beetle
It seems to me that reality goes beyond the sum total of the greatest consensus of which we are capable linguistically to describe, for there are many levels of understanding according the evaluation of the mind.

Regarding the rest ideas of yours, we agree🙂

not sure of what "levels of understanding" to which you refer.

Can you elaborate?

Einstein went so far as to deny Kant completely -- there was no objective reality -- there is only that which the human mind is able to conceive. And since that ability to conceive evolves, grows with our intellectual, scientific and physical progress, that which we understand to be reality expands accordingly.

A chair: is it a chair because it "has the essence" of a chair? or is it a chair because you and I both agree on how to use the word?

Originally posted by Scriabin
not sure of what "levels of understanding" to which you refer.

Can you elaborate?

Einstein went so far as to deny Kant completely -- there was no objective reality -- there is only that which the human mind is able to conceive. And since that ability to conceive evolves, grows with our intellectual, scientific and physical progress, that which we unde ...[text shortened]... e essence" of a chair? or is it a chair because you and I both agree on how to use the word?

It seems to me that there are two possibilities for what bb might be getting at here (and maybe he’s getting at both of them). One is perspectivism (none of us has a view from elsewhere, let alone a view from nowhere).

The other is the recognition that (metaphorically speaking) we apply the grammar of our consciousness to try to decipher the syntax of the cosmos, which syntax includes that very grammar. The fact that our grammar may not be (I would say, in likelihood isn’t*) exhaustive of that larger syntax means that there is room for a domain of mystery.

This neither argues (a) against attempts, via empiricism and reason, to push the boundaries of knowledge as far as we can, nor (b) against metaphysical speculation acknowledged as such. [There is, in my view, a kind of “religious error” that assigns to such speculations an unwarranted “must” (as in “must be true” ).]

* I suggest that the very recursiveness of our grammar being included as part of that larger syntax precludes such exhaustive knowledge: we would not only have to know everything, but also know that we know and how it is that we know, without any circularity. That seems to me to be a pretty hard epistemological nut.

Originally posted by Scriabin
not sure of what "levels of understanding" to which you refer.

Can you elaborate?

Einstein went so far as to deny Kant completely -- there was no objective reality -- there is only that which the human mind is able to conceive. And since that ability to conceive evolves, grows with our intellectual, scientific and physical progress, that which we unde ...[text shortened]... e essence" of a chair? or is it a chair because you and I both agree on how to use the word?

vistesd has a way with the words that for me is unconceivable🙂 So the abv mentiond accurate answer of his reflects my mind too.

OK, Einstein is by far more accurate than Kant -but this is caused due to the fact that Einsteins' World 1 is totally different than Kant's World 1, because Einstein's World 3 is richer than Kant's World 3 and also because Einstein's World 1 is viewed through his World 2 too, which is by far deeper than Kant's World 2. But this opinion of mine is just an intellectual/ philosophical/ scientific evaluation that leads me to this specific understanding.

It is my knowledge that there are other levels of understanding too, and the key is spiritualism as I pose it. For example, you will remember instantly the existence of one of the levels I am talking about once you realise that the Map is not the Teritory😵