min ([info]dreamlogic) wrote,
@ 2007-10-15 13:03:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current music:lemon jelly: space walk

musings.
I have found worthwhile teachings and practices in many religions and disciplines, but I cannot bring myself to subscribe personally to one, nor participate in the mix-and-match patchwork pseudo-mysticism prevalent in our age. I will admit to such indulgences as a youth while experimenting, but I can respect that no longer as an adult. As an aside, I've been thinking much the same about the emotional/relational practices of our present age. I think that one does harm to oneself and to those from which one takes, whether that's religions or people, when taking the approach of "A little of what I like from this, a little of what I like from that." As a musical group I like has said: constant shallowness leads to evil.

I also dislike when people say "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual". I wouldn't call myself religious or spiritual, but I do believe there's more than what we generally perceive or can perceive. Worlds beyond and in worlds. I'm drawn more by the subtle liftings of the veil, however, than seeking for the full frontal.

I strive to be awake and alive and aware as much as I am capable. I strive to find balances between extremes, but not to the point of shunning the extremes - balance does not mean stagnation at a single point, because change is a constant and the centre is always shifting, so movement and adjustment matters. I strive to experience without becoming lost in experience. With others, I personally strive to inspire rather than command or control, and respond best to a similar approach.




(Post a new comment)

hmm
[info]circle23
2007-10-15 08:14 pm UTC (link)
being spiritual can be a few very different things. To me spiritual is the unexplainable or a deep sense of awareness to your natural environment. I think people say "im spiritual" because it has more of a solitary involvement rather than a group dynamic that we associate with religion.

(Reply to this)


[info]fabricari
2007-10-15 08:32 pm UTC (link)
I agree, I think it's more dangerous to simply pick out parts of a mantra and call it religion. I've found religion to get in the way of self-discovery. Religion isn't spirtualism, I think. There's certainly more to life than what we can possibly perceive. Even "science" is knocking on the door of alternate-realities; hard to imagine. And since we're not designed to perceive any more than we're given, our only choice is to just enjoy life, and to help/let others enjoy theirs. (Sorry if I'm soundin' like a hippy - stuck home with the cold today.)

(Reply to this)


[info]futurepet
2007-10-15 09:42 pm UTC (link)
"I also dislike when people say "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual".

Why? Generally when people say this to me, they are making the distinction between religious as "belonging to a given church" and spiritual as believing, much like you say above, that "there's more than what we generally perceive or can perceive." I think the statement is pretty useful, insofar as it makes this distinction clear.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-16 09:00 am UTC (link)
You (and circle23 above) are right in that it is a useful phrase for distinguishing between organized religion and a personal awareness of the ineffable. I think I dislike it because I find the word used too lightly by many who use it, for my tastes. Often I find it akin to someone reading a book of koans then declaring themselves a Zen Buddhist. Though I could be sometimes guilty of judgement without adequate evidence.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dgbearcat
2007-10-15 10:06 pm UTC (link)
I'd have to agree with Futurepet...When people say they're "spiritual" I think they really mean that they don't ascribe to the idea of religion, but they do feel that there "more behind the Veil."

We had some discussion about my beliefs in New Orleans, and I really feel like I did a bad job of explaining some things. After thinking about it, it's really because there are a lot of things that I was taught that I just took for granted and never researched all of the specifics myself. Some of the things, such as the diet restrictions, are almost more of a habit than a belief, but they're something that's important as an identity thing, that there is a community that does the same thing as me as a matter of personal choice, rather than eating anything they want.

People who just pick and choose from everywhere can't possibly mesh the justifications of all of their chosen parts, as they'll eventually intersect. It reminds me of part III of the Pentabarf, which conflicts even with its OWN laws:

III - A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-16 09:28 am UTC (link)
You Discordia-quoting Jew. :) I got the gist of what you were saying in New Orleans, I think. At least, what you said above echoes what I recall you saying there.

but they're something that's important as an identity thing - can you explain further? If it's a habit and not a belief, then let's say (and I am not trying to be disrespectful by this silly example) you were raised by your community to not wear socks on Tuesdays, and after you grew up you realized there was no real present-day reason to refrain from wearing socks on Tuesdays, and not doing so does not contradict the core values of your community, why continue, and what does this contribute to your identity, for you? Honest question.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]dgbearcat
2007-10-16 02:20 pm UTC (link)
If it wasn't a core value, and it was truly an inconvenience and something that may even impact my health, I'd have dismissed it as anachronistic.

However, having grown up always doing so, and knowing that there is a community of people that (for the sake of the argument) has been doing so for thousands of years and has been persecuted and murdered for their decision to be faithful to their teachings and refrain from socks on Tuesdays, I would probably feel that there's really no harm in doing so, and not doing so would be dismissing the sacrifices of those in the past who were killed protecting this belief.


I generally examine the things that I retain as beliefs and I'm comfortable with which things I continue and which I do not.

My base opinion of Religion, really, is that whatever causes the swirling chaos of the universe to form into order and produce humans on a tiny little planet in one single galaxy: if that force is driven by intelligence and awareness and did this on purpose...and if that entity controls any sort of consciousness after death...all of the teachings of all of the religions with any historical credit seem to imply that the most important thing a human can do is be respectful of other humans and all life. Golden rule stuff.

I think the only thing that is truly ever going to change current religions (with the exception of the random creation of new ones by sci-fi writers) is nothing less than the actual appearance of the aforementioned entity to humans, and enough of them and documented enough to prove that it happened.

It actually makes me wonder what would have happened it Achaea ran without visible gods and relied only on the Mythos for proof of their existence. Would people still create and join orders and create their own teachings to go along with the ideals of the gods?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]cultofzir
2007-10-17 06:36 am UTC (link)
doing so does not contradict the core values of your community

it is possible to craft a community whose core values hold the values of the individual in high importance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]cultofzir
2007-10-17 06:33 am UTC (link)
hail eris!

-><-

all hail discordia

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sarkenobi
2007-10-15 11:48 pm UTC (link)
I'm not comfortable with organized religions cause there's always going to be something I disagree with or something they disagree with about me. I've been doing bible study with Jehovah's Witnesses for a year now and I'm always learning that way.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-16 09:39 am UTC (link)
I am curious what took you to bible study with Jehovah's Witnesses despite being uncomfortable with organized religions?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sarkenobi
2007-10-16 11:39 pm UTC (link)
Well the JW give free bible study without trying to convert everybody to JW religion. It took me quite awhile to get used to it and the idea.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]cultofzir
2007-10-16 02:08 am UTC (link)
a buffet can still yield a balanced meal. the temptation to pander to one's prejudices is a major risk there. also the risk of 'dabbling' to sooth whatever itchy ego-trapping without ever conjuring the balls to embrace one's path fully and dive in.

my own avoidance of allowing the label of 'religion' to stick to me was a defense mechanism against the pain and enslavement that human beings have inflicted in its name. understanding the bare mechanics of religion, and its necessity to my particular experiment has given me the tools to reclaim the beauty of what can be done with it, also forced me to redefine my previous shallow definition of the phenomenon.

i can recant any time i want to, my mind heart and soul belong to me at the end of the day. but i don't see this as necessary as long as my religious functions do not insult my philosophical functions, or inhibit my personal freedom. if it is to be valuable to me whatsoever it had better function to hone the use of this life while i have it, to the extent that the world at large is advanced.

i learn to be careful when saying 'i am not,' a nearly infallible indicator that there is something about me i have not accepted.

xoxo, z

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-16 09:34 am UTC (link)
I have no quarrel with those who are religious or spiritual, and I have respect for those who fully embrace such paths. Personally, I wouldn't say 'I'm not', but I wouldn't say that 'I am'. R.A.W.-ian e-prime!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]cultofzir
2007-10-17 06:30 am UTC (link)
word.

to me, saying 'i am' is similar to saying 'i believe' in that i understand the verb to be fluid in its relationship to time and place and circumstance.

it is often useful to apply such functions to adapt to and shape the aforemention coordinates. 'i believe i am walking to the coffee house,' for example. (((or if one feels it is suitable: 'i believe i am experiencing the indwelling of the divine, which i will use for x purpose)))

what 'i am' in its complete sense does not seem to approximate a static state until this incarnate vehicle passes from lifeform to fertilizer. and even then remains dynamic in its influence and material entropy.

e-prime rox0rzz

xoxo, z

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]aggroslav
2007-10-16 10:59 am UTC (link)
I'm with Daniel Tosh on this one...

If anyone tells me "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual" I like to respond with "I'm not honest, but you're interesting."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-16 09:08 pm UTC (link)
Heh, precisely.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I'm not litigious, but I'm contractual.
[info]lx
2007-10-16 01:16 pm UTC (link)
Isn't arbitrary synthesis the game of life?

You won't believe how many image results there are for moosings!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I'm not litigious, but I'm contractual.
[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-16 09:09 pm UTC (link)
Synthesis, yes. Arbitrary - at some levels yes, at others, no.

And oh, I do believe it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I'm not contentious, but I'm factual.
[info]lx
2007-10-16 11:10 pm UTC (link)
But what about my cute subject! I was attempting to provoke escalation!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I'm not isochronous, but I'm a fractal!
[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-16 11:52 pm UTC (link)
Oh, fine. But I discard with the diphthongs.

You're not meticulous, but you're duodecimal!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I'm not suspicious, but I'm instinctual.
[info]lx
2007-10-17 01:38 am UTC (link)
You're not officious, but you're textual!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I'm not punctilious, but I am punctual.
[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-17 02:12 am UTC (link)
The return of the diphthongs!

You're not fictitious, but you're virtual.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I'm not pernicious, but I'm perpetual.
[info]lx
2007-10-17 02:22 am UTC (link)
You're not contagious, but you're catchable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I'm not ambidextrous, nor am I sinistromanual.
[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-17 02:52 am UTC (link)
You're not perjurious, but you're counterfactual!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I'm not capricious, but I'm situational.
[info]lx
2007-10-17 02:59 am UTC (link)
You're not malicious, but you're contrapuntal.

I could do these all day.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I'm not lugubrious, but I'm luctual.
[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-17 10:42 pm UTC (link)
You're not contentious, but you're contextual.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I'm not fastidious, but I'm effectual.
[info]lx
2007-10-17 10:48 pm UTC (link)
Repeat of contentious! Ref, can we get a ruling?

You're not judicious, but you're consensual.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: I'm not litigious, but I'm contractual.
[info]cultofzir
2007-10-17 06:40 am UTC (link)
genesis p orridge: "thee splinter test"

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I'm not socially networked, but I lurk.
(Anonymous)
2007-10-18 07:40 am UTC (link)
It's funny that you posted this, because we talked about this exact subject in church today. The actual class is about "christian values" in modern America, but we ended up on a tangent about this topic. Most of the people in class also expressed disdain for the "I'm not religious..." cop out.

I think alot of the problem I have with the phrase is the implied lack of commitment behind it. Maybe it's a reaction to the demand for blind obedience alot of us had forced on us as children. Could be one doesn't want to really dig deep on such a personal topic with someone else. Maybe we're ashamed that when we really get to the heart of it, we don't live the core beliefs we personally "know" to be true. Could be laziness. I know in my time it was probably all of the above. (Although I usually said "I'm very religious, just not into organized religion".. Same thing.)

If one believes there's a deeper meaning or movement to the universe, and if one believes they are more than observers of it, I think it's natural to feel a desire at some point to get to work on playing one's part. When you do that with any other person to any real extent, you've got a religion. So I can only assume that most "spiritual" people fail one of the two prerequisites above. (obviously a hardcore Buddhist would probably not want to do much other than observe, but even the Buddha took the time to help out someone other than himself.)

In our desire to be open minded and accepting of others' views we've let ourselves become lazy and hide behind phrases like this, because the truth of the matter is almost everything in this area will end up with us realizing we're not the independent objectivists we thought we were when we were kids, and there's alot of hard, unpleasant, and probably rather confrontational shit we need to work through to really fulfill our purpose around here, whatever we find it to be.

In the mean time, the taleban grows in power at home and abroad, they'll have us all bowing down to pictures of Pat Robertson, Osama, Chavez, or Hitler sooner or later (which side wins really doesn't matter, they're all the same evil shit.) The last set of Dark ages didn't sound particularly nice, I personally need to be come more active to see that it doesn't happen during my kids lifetime.

Anyway, I'm babbling a bit. Not the biggest poetry reader these days but there is one deal by Yeats that comes to mind, first stanza of "The Second Coming" seems to summarize this whole thing quite well, especially the last line. I'll paste here for fun:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

I'd rather be the best and full of passionate intensity myself... Still working on it. My recent commitment to an organized religion is a start I guess. I'd like to come up with something to inspire you to do the same, Min, think you'd make a great preacher.

Pulu

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I'm not socially networked, but I lurk.
[info]dreamlogic
2007-10-20 01:05 am UTC (link)
Tell me about your recent commitment to organized religion. I disagree that I'd make a great preacher, but I've always thought you would.

I miss you Pulu. I might see your sister this weekend. I'll be down in your part of the country around Christmastime, between the 24th and 28th. I hope you have some time to see me and meet my fiance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Greetings
[info]thiebes
2007-11-15 12:01 am UTC (link)
I meant to reciprocate the add a long time ago, but apparently it fell through the cracks. Thanks and welcome!

(Reply to this)

this again
[info]kingnutria
2008-01-23 11:37 am UTC (link)
I think words get contaminated and corrupted, and "spirit" and "spirituality" are two of those words. It seems to be very difficult to use those words in meaningful and appropriate ways. Spirit is something to be more than something to Talk About, as if from a distance.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…