Existentialism...

[iBrian]

I state again I AM NOT against personal spirituality, indeed I find it a wonderful way of expressing our appreciation of our self-awareness but the wilful belief in deities is an abdication of personal responsibility to understand both ourselves and all our brothers and sisters.

I think this is a very interesting point to raise - my presumption would be that those espousing a sense of personal spirituality are looking to use it somehow to help others - in other words, taking control of what they have and trying to contribute to a "greater good", no matter how misguided they may sometimes seem to others.

However, it's an easy stereotype to find of the literalist Christian who believes in salvation over works, who has no interest in trying to help others or the world, because that's seen as God's "responsibility". If God is going to sort out the world, why bother doing anything else excepting make sure your report card ticks all the right boxes to guarantee free entry to Heaven, and leave everyone else to struggle in the world?

 

[Tao_Equus]

I think this is a very interesting point to raise - my presumption would be that those espousing a sense of personal spirituality are looking to use it somehow to help others - in other words, taking control of what they have and trying to contribute to a "greater good", no matter how misguided they may sometimes seem to others.

Spirituality to me is best seen as a personal aesthetic, like an appreciation of art or music. It can be shareable of course but an aesthetic can never be a universal rule. And thus should never be sold as one.

 

[path_of_one]

Interesting analogy, Tao. I would challenge that belief in deity necessarily renders one antithetical to personal responsibility. I believe in diety, no not the big beardy sky type, but still a sort of Divine Oneness... yet I believe I am fully responsible for my actions and thoughts, and that I can either be a vessel for this love and connectedness flowing through me, or I can shut it off (like a garden hose nozzle) and deprive others of my being a "node" so to speak in this Divine Oneness. I can relate to personal dieties of various kinds, but I think of these as symbolic (or real but archtypal) manifestations of some aspect of the Divine. So Cerunnos is not the same as Jesus who is not the same as Brigid and so on... but there is value in the archetypes and a reason that the human brain is profoundly symbolic.

I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't the concept of diety itself that is problematic to me, but how people use it (back to that personal responsibility thing). Kind of like money... money in and of itself is neutral, neither good nor bad. It is all in how people use it- if they are greedy, stingy, etc. or if they are generous and responsible.

I am interested in learning more about pantheism and panentheism. My understanding is that pantheism is the belief that G-d is the material and reality of our universe. And panentheism is pantheism, plus. In the sense that G-d is what is beyond that material and real universe.

Do you agree with this description of pantheism and panentheism ?

Sounds about right. Pantheism is God in all things. Panentheism is God in all things AND beyond all things.

My own way of seeing it is- I am very limited, whereas God is infinite. So I can experience God as It manifests in all things, but I am aware that my experience and/or beliefs can't possibly accurately encompass what God is. God is, ultimately, incomprehensible to me. I can experience It but I can't really *know* what it is I'm experiencing. So I leave room for God being a whole lot more than my puny little mind can process- the "beyond."

If panenthesim describes the presence of G-d beyond our reality, I can only guess that this might include spirituality, the soul, etc. Can anyone explain it to me ?

Personally, I think everything is natural. If we have a soul and/or spirit (I think we have both), these things are part of our natural world, but we just can't measure them or approach them at this point. Rather, we can only experience them and philosophize about how they work and what they mean. It's not so much that I think God is beyond our reality as I think our capacity to understand and even experience our reality is limited. You think about it this way- what is beyond the edge of our known universe? We can't see that far- we can't see before the Big Bang. Yet, that does not mean something isn't there. We can imagine what might be beyond it (i.e., ideas about our universe being within the event horizon of a black hole, for example, and so beyond it is an even larger universe) and these can be just from our creativity or from some sort of spiritual experience we have. But ultimately, we can't really know because of our limitations. So I choose to be open to experience and new ideas, and to recognize my limitations. This is why I cannot be atheist. I don't want to limit the possibilities when I am aware of how many limitations my little brain has, and potentially even that my universe has.

Now, where I think God resides in all that is that our creativity itself is part of God manifesting Itself as a creative process. Just as God is love, and so all our selfless love is God manifesting Itself into the universe, the All, so God is creativity and so all our creative pursuits are open to Divine inspiration.

Do many people in this forum believe that these systems are good ways to describe G-d, and our reality, as well ?

I don't know about many, but I do know I'm not the only one.

 

[Snoopy]

@ Snoopy Kierkegaard complete genius

OK

Care to share why?

s.

 

[Snoopy]

It can make me livid. I want to scream wake up you ~~~~~~~ idiot....smell the ~~~~~~~ coffee!!

OK OK! I'm only trying to find out about existentialist thought! The coffee's beautiful!!!

I might just add an occasional question but I am reading!!

s.

 

[earl]

Interesting analogy, Tao. I would challenge that belief in deity necessarily renders one antithetical to personal responsibility. I believe in diety, no not the big beardy sky type, but still a sort of Divine Oneness... yet I believe I am fully responsible for my actions and thoughts, and that I can either be a vessel for this love and connectedness flowing through me, or I can shut it off (like a garden hose nozzle) and deprive others of my being a "node" so to speak in this Divine Oneness. I can relate to personal dieties of various kinds, but I think of these as symbolic (or real but archtypal) manifestations of some aspect of the Divine. So Cerunnos is not the same as Jesus who is not the same as Brigid and so on... but there is value in the archetypes and a reason that the human brain is profoundly symbolic.

I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't the concept of diety itself that is problematic to me, but how people use it (back to that personal responsibility thing). Kind of like money... money in and of itself is neutral, neither good nor bad. It is all in how people use it- if they are greedy, stingy, etc. or if they are generous and responsible.



Sounds about right. Pantheism is God in all things. Panentheism is God in all things AND beyond all things.

My own way of seeing it is- I am very limited, whereas God is infinite. So I can experience God as It manifests in all things, but I am aware that my experience and/or beliefs can't possibly accurately encompass what God is. God is, ultimately, incomprehensible to me. I can experience It but I can't really *know* what it is I'm experiencing. So I leave room for God being a whole lot more than my puny little mind can process- the "beyond."



Personally, I think everything is natural. If we have a soul and/or spirit (I think we have both), these things are part of our natural world, but we just can't measure them or approach them at this point. Rather, we can only experience them and philosophize about how they work and what they mean. It's not so much that I think God is beyond our reality as I think our capacity to understand and even experience our reality is limited. You think about it this way- what is beyond the edge of our known universe? We can't see that far- we can't see before the Big Bang. Yet, that does not mean something isn't there. We can imagine what might be beyond it (i.e., ideas about our universe being within the event horizon of a black hole, for example, and so beyond it is an even larger universe) and these can be just from our creativity or from some sort of spiritual experience we have. But ultimately, we can't really know because of our limitations. So I choose to be open to experience and new ideas, and to recognize my limitations. This is why I cannot be atheist. I don't want to limit the possibilities when I am aware of how many limitations my little brain has, and potentially even that my universe has.

Now, where I think God resides in all that is that our creativity itself is part of God manifesting Itself as a creative process. Just as God is love, and so all our selfless love is God manifesting Itself into the universe, the All, so God is creativity and so all our creative pursuits are open to Divine inspiration.



I don't know about many, but I do know I'm not the only one.

Don't know that I've ever disagreed with anything you've posted Kim. As to that soul/spirit thing, some New Age thinkers, (New Age is such an amorphous term, cannot say that there is a set bunch of "New Age" beliefs), tend to think that the soul is holographic-that a "portion" of soul energy steps into the body, while a mirror image complement remains in spirit. As to when such an incarnational process occurs, some believe it does not until the moment of physical birth, (that latter coming from a purported extremely good psychic who claims to "see" such things including when present at a moment of birth). earl

 

[path_of_one]

That's certainly an interesting way of looking at it, Earl. It gives me something new to kick around. I've generally entertained the self as an onion, with the deepest layer as spirit- that is, Spirit Itself. The unified, connected Being that we are a sort of "node" or manifestation of. There's more individuality than that in my conceptualization of it, but tough to explain. I'll give it a shot... I had a vision once where everything was a musical frequency, and Being Itself was the order/structure that all this sound made. It was not that Being ordered the sounds, nor that the sounds created the order, but rather a constant interbeingness. I would say my spirit is that unique sound or vibration that I am, and this is related intimately and inevitably with the structure of the music that is the All, which is God Itself.

My soul I tend to think of as the next layer(s) of the onion, which has to do with all the lives I've lived and how these have affected me spiritually. The spirit simply is, if stripped of the rest. The soul has the consciousness that allows me to be awake, aware, in some spiritual way. This soul is what retains, at some deep level, the memory of what I have been and how this affects me. The soul journeys away from interbeingness toward individuality, then it journeys back to interbeingness. So there is this motion over time of the One becoming All (the many, diversity, creativity) and then these "individuals" returning to the One. That process is about as close as I can get to describing what I think God might be... but I am pretty sure I'm still missing a whole lot.

 

[Avi]

Sounds about right. Pantheism is God in all things. Panentheism is God in all things AND beyond all things.

My own way of seeing it is- I am very limited, whereas God is infinite. So I can experience God as It manifests in all things, but I am aware that my experience and/or beliefs can't possibly accurately encompass what God is. God is, ultimately, incomprehensible to me. I can experience It but I can't really *know* what it is I'm experiencing. So I leave room for God being a whole lot more than my puny little mind can process- the "beyond."

Personally, I think everything is natural. If we have a soul and/or spirit (I think we have both), these things are part of our natural world, but we just can't measure them or approach them at this point. Rather, we can only experience them and philosophize about how they work and what they mean. It's not so much that I think God is beyond our reality as I think our capacity to understand and even experience our reality is limited. You think about it this way- what is beyond the edge of our known universe? We can't see that far- we can't see before the Big Bang. Yet, that does not mean something isn't there. We can imagine what might be beyond it (i.e., ideas about our universe being within the event horizon of a black hole, for example, and so beyond it is an even larger universe) and these can be just from our creativity or from some sort of spiritual experience we have. But ultimately, we can't really know because of our limitations. So I choose to be open to experience and new ideas, and to recognize my limitations. This is why I cannot be atheist. I don't want to limit the possibilities when I am aware of how many limitations my little brain has, and potentially even that my universe has.

Now, where I think God resides in all that is that our creativity itself is part of God manifesting Itself as a creative process. Just as God is love, and so all our selfless love is God manifesting Itself into the universe, the All, so God is creativity and so all our creative pursuits are open to Divine inspiration.

Poo, that explanation of panentheism is wonderful, thanks.

I think of it in other words, but it seems to me like the ideas are almost exactly the same.

As we try to understand G-d, we can put the things we do not know in two categories. They are the things that we can hope to know, and perhaps will someday know, and the things we probably never will understand.

In the first category, we do not know what is outside of our universe, or deep inside the atom, but each day we will know more about these concepts and in the future almost certainly know much more than we do today. It is unlikely that we will ever know everything about these areas, but we can earnestly strive to do so.

The second category, which we will probably never really understand is: spirituality, the soul, love and other emotions. These ideas cannot adequately be explained in words anyway. Perhaps these too are manifestations of G-d.

Regarding atheism, we have a different view here, because it seems to me that it offers a unique perspective. In my view atheism is at the far rationalist end of the spectrum. It some cases this view is needed. It also can help to recognize the need for paradigm shift. In other cases, it just doesn't have the heart !!

 

[Postmaster]

Regarding atheism, we have a different view here, because it seems to me that it offers a unique perspective. In my view atheism is at the far rationalist end of the spectrum. It some cases this view is needed. It also can help to recognize the need for paradigm shift. In other cases, it just doesn't have the heart !!

Interesting point! Are you saying we shift our philosophy depending on its relevance to a situation? I often do.

 

[Snoopy]

Spirituality to me is best seen as a personal aesthetic, like an appreciation of art or music. It can be shareable of course but an aesthetic can never be a universal rule. And thus should never be sold as one.

How does one differentiate/separate spirituality, being individual and morality, being universal (as in when embodied in law, which you noted previously).

(I hope you realise I'm not trying to be tricky here, just to get my head around some existentialist basics)

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

How does one differentiate/separate spirituality, being individual and morality, being universal (as in when embodied in law, which you noted previously).

By rules of demarcation and by education. It is simple to illustrate the pitfalls of using religion to settle moral issues, so forgive me if I don't go there, and it is simple to define international law, as in the United Nations. You can adhere to the codes that govern your individual sense of morality, you just have no right of harassment of anyone who does not have the same codes. Religious spirituality has to be reduced across all societies to where it is accepted as a philosophy, not the stand alone pseudo-truth of reason it currently masquerades as.

(I hope you realise I'm not trying to be tricky here, just to get my head around some existentialist basics)

s.

Sorry Snoopy you are asking the wrong guy. I read some Sarte and Nietzsche a long time ago but I am not familiar enough with the terminology you seem to be looking for. All I remember is that there were many truisms I recognised and understood and this forms what I call existentialism. But I have never studied it as a school of philosophy. Reading back over some excerpts from Sarte I do see his influence in a lot of my thinking as seen posted here. Its a bit like anarchy with responsibility.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

"...existence is prior to essence", says Sartre. The idea of existentialism is to take man as one finds him, describe his actual situation as it exists, then ask questions specifically about that. This is similar to what postmodernism attempts, which is an examination of surfaces. Why start with the surface? Because one avoids the paradox of meaningless meaning which infests any speculation of essence preceding existence.

That probably didn't help.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

we have largely lost the value of religion for practical matters such as health, economics, and sustainability. I find that to be a shame, because it's apparent that, on the whole, we haven't filled in the void with something else. Of course science has lots to say, but without getting the billions of fellow global citizens on board with proper behavior, we continue to screw over each other and our planet.

Well, I think if there's any one thing we've learned it's don't let the bloody Catholics touch anything!

Chris

 

[Snoopy]

By rules of demarcation and by education. It is simple to illustrate the pitfalls of using religion to settle moral issues, so forgive me if I don't go there, and it is simple to define international law, as in the United Nations. You can adhere to the codes that govern your individual sense of morality, you just have no right of harassment of anyone who does not have the same codes. Religious spirituality has to be reduced across all societies to where it is accepted as a philosophy, not the stand alone pseudo-truth of reason it currently masquerades as.

Don't individual notions of morality seamlessly blend across into what secular law is based on (in the general sense of feelings of "fairness" - yes stop laughing I know we're on about lawyers here but you get my point?)

Sorry Snoopy you are asking the wrong guy. I read some Sarte and Nietzsche a long time ago but I am not familiar enough with the terminology you seem to be looking for. All I remember is that there were many truisms I recognised and understood and this forms what I call existentialism. But I have never studied it as a school of philosophy. Reading back over some excerpts from Sarte I do see his influence in a lot of my thinking as seen posted here. Its a bit like anarchy with responsibility.

OK thanks for some pointers. It looks like I might have to buy one of those book things (only a little one though to see what it's all about - those Very Short Introductions from the OUP are good I think - have you seen them?)

s.

 

[Snoopy]

The idea of existentialism is to take man as one finds him, describe his actual situation as it exists, then ask questions specifically about that.

That probably didn't help.

Well it did! It may come as no surprise that the reason I'm kind of interested in existentialism is (from what little I've seen) it seems to resonate with my understanding of Buddhism; as per your quote above. It may be partial or tangential in respect of B-, but I shall be looking into it.

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Don't individual notions of morality seamlessly blend across into what secular law is based on (in the general sense of feelings of "fairness" - yes stop laughing I know we're on about lawyers here but you get my point?)




s.

lol, well yeh...that is the hope and in western style democracies it has been working incrementally to protect individual rights. I suppose what I am against in some sense is institutional rights. Trade unions work well in getting workers rights but if they get too powerful they can be destructive. Religions are dangerously infatuated with their own, rather than their devotees, need for power. I believe religious lobbies should be banned from politics. Individuals have to recognise that the only legitimate way to tolerate and be tolerated is to completely remove religious thinking and motivation from politics. In the west we are quite far down that track, with some glaring exceptions, but globally that is still a huge ask. And it is all down to education. It is no accident that the most broadly educated peoples on Earth have the highest proportion of liberal agnostics.

 

[wil]

I believe religious lobbies should be banned from politics. Individuals have to recognise that the only legitimate way to tolerate and be tolerated is to completely remove religious thinking and motivation from politics. In the west we are quite far down that track, with some glaring exceptions, but globally that is still a huge ask. And it is all down to education. It is no accident that the most broadly educated peoples on Earth have the highest proportion of liberal agnostics.

I wish the Spirituality and Politics discussions with Neal Donald Walsch and Hagelin were online someplace... they hit home to me as to why spirituality should be in all our affairs.

Liberal is another word I have issues with...my spiritual/religous/christian thinking is considered quite liberal by some, but overly conservative by others...such words are such a matter of perspective depending where you stand on that line.

News Flash: "Spirituality and Politics" Update

 

[nativeastral]

Well it did! It may come as no surprise that the reason I'm kind of interested in existentialism is (from what little I've seen) it seems to resonate with my understanding of Buddhism; as per your quote above. It may be partial or tangential in respect of B-, but I shall be looking into it.

s.

l was hoping to contribute what little l know of sartre but have gotten waylaid listening to herbert dreyfuss' podcasts on heideggars 'being and time' which l know influenced sartre; both are coming from the phenomenological background started by husserl viz investigating things or beings 'in themselves' by bracketing out any pre conceived notions or concepts [method used by anthropology but found not to be water tight!].

Both s and h departed from husserl's eventual idealsm but took his concept of intentionality for describing consciousness [which husserl took from bretano] as a given ie consciousness is always about something. Sartre saw the 'for itself' as transparent, empty and spontaneous, this is the Freedom of the human condition, always in movement, yet constrained by facticity [past] and situatedness. 'man is condemned to be free' and has no choice but to choose; whether he does this with authenticity or bad faith is another question.

Sartre called it the for itself, distinquished from the 'in itself' but dependent on it [pour soi/en soi] so the human being includes the in itself, which is wholly affirmative and full [like descartes res extensia, or matter] and the for itself or consciousness, which has 2 modes, prereflective and reflective.
Unlike descartes, who saw the mind as a substance whose being depends on g#d, sartre says nothing is the cause of consciousness and his whole book 'being and nothingness' is about this negation, or his word, nihilation, which is paradoxical and contradictory [and goes back to paramenides] yet is what reveals that our 'natures' are free, this power to negate.

Its not possible to identify the for itself as reflective consciousness negates prereflective consciousness [see it as more akin to the in itself] it takes as its object. In fact sartre sees the ego itself as an object and does not believe in an unconscious; intentionality is always irreflective, a striving towards [transcending] objects of apprehension.

Feel am starting to sound confusing to myself! Sartre emphasises the importance of imagination and emotions in the totality of the 'body subject' as well as 'being for others' ie in the glance, the look [again all phenomenological issues] and the importance of instruments [equipment] in the lived in world, and therefore a holistic approach.

He thinks 'man is a useless passion' in that there will always be a fissure as man is attempting to be an in itself, full and complete, the desire 'to be god' [in itself] shows such a lack, as do all desires.

l thought that Sartre had investigated eastern philosophies too at first in his notion of emptiness and bad faith as unskilful [self deluding] actions which does not help in trying to unify the in and for itself of our existence of being in the world.

 

[Avi]

Feel am starting to sound confusing to myself!

Haha, NA, this is very funny ! Isn't that really the point of existentialism anyway ? It pushes complexity to the limit, so we get confused trying to understand what we are trying to understand .

This reminds me of some of the old Woody Allen movies, in them I think he was parodying the existentialist writers. Especially in "Love and Death" that was a really funny one. The final scene has him trying to outmanuever the Angel of Death !!

 

[Avi]

Here is someone not on your list, Martin Buber. I read two of his books, one philosophical, I and Thou and the other one religious, Baal Shem Tov:

In I and Thou, Buber introduced his thesis on human existence. Inspired partly by FeuerbachThe Essence of Christianity and Kierkegaard's "Single One", Buber worked upon the premise of existence as encounter.[3] He explained this philosophy using the word pairs of Ich-Du and Ich-Es to categorize the modes of consciousness, interaction, and being through which an individual engages with other individuals, inanimate objects, and all reality in general. Philosophically, these word pairs express complex ideas about modes of being - particularly how a person exists and actualizes that existence (see existentialism). As Buber argues in I and Thou, a person is at all times engaged with the world in one of these modes.
The generic motif Buber employs to describe the dual modes of being is one of dialogue (Ich-Du) and monologue (Ich-Es). The concept of communication, particularly language-oriented communication, is used both in describing dialogue/monologue through metaphors and expressing the interpersonal nature of human existence.

It is true that dialogue frames our daily activity and life in general, and it does almost seem digital in our moving between these different modes of interaction.

It makes me wonder about the role of prayer. It almost seems like this is a hybrid mode. You are doing something deeply individualistic, but as part of a group.

Buber stressed that an Ich-Du relationship lacks any composition (e.g. structure) and communicates no content (e.g. information). Despite the fact that Ich-Du cannot be proven to happen as an event (e.g. it cannot be measured), Buber stressed that it is real and perceivable. A variety of examples are used to illustrate Ich-Du relationships in daily life - two lovers, an observer and a cat, the author and a tree, and two strangers on a train. Common English words used to describe the Ich-Du relationship include encounter, meeting, dialogue, mutuality, and exchange.

The author and a tree , I love that one !! I have to admit I have not had a dialogue with a tree recently, but maybe I need to rethink that one . I bet there are some other posters here who have these dialogues ! Does it mean a meeting of the minds ? Is our influence affected by these meetings, dialogues, etc. ? What about a reader and a book ? Are we in dialgoue with the author ? Or in monologue with ourselves ?

The Ich-Es ("I-It") relationship is nearly the opposite of Ich-Du. Whereas in Ich-Du the two beings encounter one another, in an Ich-Es relationship the beings do not actually meet. Instead, the "I" confronts and qualifies an idea, or conceptualization, of the being in its presence and treats that being as an object. All such objects are considered merely mental representations, created and sustained by the individual mind. This is based partly on Kant's theory of phenomenon, in that these objects reside in the cognitive agent’s mind, existing only as thoughts. Therefore, the Ich-Es relationship is in fact a relationship with oneself; it is not a dialogue, but a monologue.

And aren't these monologues some of our most important experiences ? Is this where we take some of the new information which we learn in our dialogues and transform it into ourselves ? I think this topic is making me ask more questions than giving me answers . Existentialism !

Should I quit my day job and become an existentialist ?

By the way, Buber was a Jewish existentialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber