My guess is Daniel's view is rooted in how we take our common experience of life and use different verbal maps to frame that common experience. Daniel simply uses a different abstract lens to describe the experiences he gets, which are the same experiences we all get and convert to some words. The maps we make are not the same as the territory, the same as the word water is not the actual substance. To understand the level of disconnect between our abstract maps and the actual territory, we could consider how religious stories probably emerged - as symbolic representations (verbal stories and ritual acting out etc.) of the already ongoing story expressed through the cosmos which we were part of when we first developed our mapping skills. I think sometimes people like Daniel confuse the usefulness we get out of mapping objective processes, (which science does so well) with the notion that the process is all their is to life, and that everything can be fully explained by describing the process. It cannot. This is why Daniel seems to me to struggle in the areas of life that are explained through story; through the subject, not by descriptions of the relationships between objects. The subject is expressed by way of how objects relate to each other, but is nonetheless a different domain than simply describing the objective process. We do not live by objective processes alone, but also by the subjects which are expressed through them. The value of the stories we craft, capture and preserve in the matrix of our various individual and cultural identities, including, but not exclusive to those we sacralize; are the way we convey to ourselves and to each other important aspects of the already ongoing expressions made through nature. They are also one of the ways we give expression to our own nature. As social emotional creatures we give expression to how we feel - to our deep seated drives - regardless of whether or not we have an accurate verbal map of those drives and how they relate to our experience. At a cultural level, our ritual dances and ceremonies along with the sacred stories and institutions encapsulate the “Things we need to know”; such as; we live in the context of an almighty reality that we must relate to in certain ways to live, and that gives us a certain kind of life experiences depending on how we relate. The nested object to object relationships we express determine in part how we experience life. It is our part in the larger story we are all nested in. I could be missing something(s)
Why is there always a need to divide? Why must it be "supernatural" or definitively "not supernatural?" We are lost in our need to objectify reality. Everything we perceive is included in the human experience and therefore natural by virtue of its very existence. The materialist includes all perceivable phenomena as part of the physical universe and denies the existence of anything non-physical. This denial will always be correct, because whatever we discover automatically comes under that umbrella, so if what we think of as supernatural today is later discovered to be "objectively" perceptible with new technology, it will be included in physical reality. Thus their premise is guaranteed; just one of the perks of making up the rules. "Meditation changes the brain." Yes, perhaps it does, but this says nothing about the true, complete nature of spirituality. Maybe there's more to it, maybe there isn't. Can you live with that unanswered question or must you pick a side despite the lack of certainty? Just because there are changes to the brain doesn't mean that's the end of the story necessarily. My TV changes depending on what program I am watching, but that doesn't mean the show originates in the TV. What we know about the universe would no doubt fit on the dust jacket of the complete book of knowledge.
***** Overall I think that's right, but they gotta give a dog a bone lest it appear too much like utter conformity. It's like tattoos are offered as a way to be "unique" and edgy, except everyone has them and its merely conformity with the illusion of non-conformity. They mimmick the tribal division with sub-sects, like preppies and goths and metalheads and geeks, and it feels like tribes but really just comes down to shopping at different stores in the same mall. Understand that I use the "they" somewhat metaphorically as it's guided by many hands but utterly controlled by no one group in particular. Culture isn't dictated, but encouraged... it's sort of like Olympic curling.
What a great turn of phrase: "What we know about the universe would no doubt fit on the dust jacket of the complete book of knowledge." I will be weaving that into my lexicon of phrases
What are talking about. Trying to understand what secular spirituality is. Core beliefs. How do you go to Heaven or Hell. Yes the world is beautiful and wonderfully made as are humans, animals and plants. The solar system. But that is creation of a God. Your leading others to believe that they need to worship the creation and not the creator.
I agree 100%. I feel so comfortable that there is a term that describes my faith, or lack of, so perfectly.
Such an awesome talk. Thank you.
In-deed! Well said. 😊
My guess is Daniel's view is rooted in how we take our common experience of life and use different verbal maps to frame that common experience. Daniel simply uses a different abstract lens to describe the experiences he gets, which are the same experiences we all get and convert to some words.
The maps we make are not the same as the territory, the same as the word water is not the actual substance. To understand the level of disconnect between our abstract maps and the actual territory, we could consider how religious stories probably emerged - as symbolic representations (verbal stories and ritual acting out etc.) of the already ongoing story expressed through the cosmos which we were part of when we first developed our mapping skills.
I think sometimes people like Daniel confuse the usefulness we get out of mapping objective processes, (which science does so well) with the notion that the process is all their is to life, and that everything can be fully explained by describing the process. It cannot. This is why Daniel seems to me to struggle in the areas of life that are explained through story; through the subject, not by descriptions of the relationships between objects. The subject is expressed by way of how objects relate to each other, but is nonetheless a different domain than simply describing the objective process. We do not live by objective processes alone, but also by the subjects which are expressed through them.
The value of the stories we craft, capture and preserve in the matrix of our various individual and cultural identities, including, but not exclusive to those we sacralize; are the way we convey to ourselves and to each other important aspects of the already ongoing expressions made through nature. They are also one of the ways we give expression to our own nature. As social emotional creatures we give expression to how we feel - to our deep seated drives - regardless of whether or not we have an accurate verbal map of those drives and how they relate to our experience.
At a cultural level, our ritual dances and ceremonies along with the sacred stories and institutions encapsulate the “Things we need to know”; such as; we live in the context of an almighty reality that we must relate to in certain ways to live, and that gives us a certain kind of life experiences depending on how we relate. The nested object to object relationships we express determine in part how we experience life. It is our part in the larger story we are all nested in.
I could be missing something(s)
Why is there always a need to divide? Why must it be "supernatural" or definitively "not supernatural?" We are lost in our need to objectify reality. Everything we perceive is included in the human experience and therefore natural by virtue of its very existence.
The materialist includes all perceivable phenomena as part of the physical universe and denies the existence of anything non-physical. This denial will always be correct, because whatever we discover automatically comes under that umbrella, so if what we think of as supernatural today is later discovered to be "objectively" perceptible with new technology, it will be included in physical reality. Thus their premise is guaranteed; just one of the perks of making up the rules.
"Meditation changes the brain." Yes, perhaps it does, but this says nothing about the true, complete nature of spirituality. Maybe there's more to it, maybe there isn't. Can you live with that unanswered question or must you pick a side despite the lack of certainty?
Just because there are changes to the brain doesn't mean that's the end of the story necessarily. My TV changes depending on what program I am watching, but that doesn't mean the show originates in the TV.
What we know about the universe would no doubt fit on the dust jacket of the complete book of knowledge.
***** So are you saying that the tribal instinct is being repressed by culture?
***** Overall I think that's right, but they gotta give a dog a bone lest it appear too much like utter conformity. It's like tattoos are offered as a way to be "unique" and edgy, except everyone has them and its merely conformity with the illusion of non-conformity.
They mimmick the tribal division with sub-sects, like preppies and goths and metalheads and geeks, and it feels like tribes but really just comes down to shopping at different stores in the same mall.
Understand that I use the "they" somewhat metaphorically as it's guided by many hands but utterly controlled by no one group in particular. Culture isn't dictated, but encouraged... it's sort of like Olympic curling.
What a great turn of phrase: "What we know about the universe would no doubt fit on the dust jacket of the complete book of knowledge." I will be weaving that into my lexicon of phrases
What are talking about. Trying to understand what secular spirituality is. Core beliefs. How do you go to Heaven or Hell. Yes the world is beautiful and wonderfully made as are humans, animals and plants. The solar system. But that is creation of a God. Your leading others to believe that they need to worship the creation and not the creator.
'secular spirituality'
just wtf...
What profound BS.