Who is the most spiritually advanced member of Sciforums?

[The Marquis]

^Ha! Good one!

In fact, all the religious/spiritual traditions that I am familiar with, state that claiming to be advanced is a sure sign that one is not advanced.

Hmmmm. This appears to me to be an appeal to authority.
I've always disliked the accepted set of logical fallacies, however, simply due to the fact that by accepting them as canon, one is, in essence, already appealing to authority in the very act of invoking them. Quite the conundrum, really. Perhaps even an example of paradox, without really thinking about it.

As to the question at hand, the answer is, simply, me. This is of course relying solely upon my own definition of "spirituality" as it would appear that no one has put one forward as yet.
I have yet to meet anyone who knows as much about humanity itself than myself. This is a simple, albeit subjective, statement of fact. For those who have already put forward self-effacement and humility as an indicator of elightenment, it should also be an indicator that I emphatically reject the premises upon which you base your judgement.

Humanity, in order to "advance", has always relied upon both catalyst and protagonist. The absence of either, or both, tends to result in little more than stagnation. Conflict, and the subsequent dominance of one thing over another, lies at the heart of the most basic levels of life on earth.

Humility, espoused as a concept or as a reality, achieves nothing other than to give its advocator a reason to accept ones own existence. It serves as justification. It is a given in my view that the majority ride on the coattails of a very few who give us, by dint of their own superiority, in one form or another, the ability to continue existing in the manner in which we deem fit.

It relies entirely upon the largesse of those few who were not humble.

If anyone, at this point, decides to throw Ghandi at me by way of example in opposition I will state, in advance, here and now, that he was not humble.
Does anyone, really, not see the multiple levels upon which the cartoon shown above was not humorous?
Really?

The concept of God, in one form or another, lies at the heart of all philosophical meaning.
Is it any wonder, then, that the concept exists to begin with. Or that we so desperately desire to believe.

Because without it, and without any real understanding of what death actually is without it, we remove the veneer through which we perceive reality.

You really, really, do not want to do that.

 

[NMSquirrel]

* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

All moderators have administrative rights over this subforum. We received a complaint about one of the posts on this thread.

which one?

if mine..i apologize..

As far as I'm concerned, one of the main purposes for even having this subforum is to provide a place where trolling is condoned.

um..did you misuse the word condone?
Condone;
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

 

[wynn]

For those who have already put forward self-effacement and humility as an indicator of elightenment, it should also be an indicator that I emphatically reject the premises upon which you base your judgement.

Humanity, in order to "advance", has always relied upon both catalyst and protagonist. The absence of either, or both, tends to result in little more than stagnation. Conflict, and the subsequent dominance of one thing over another, lies at the heart of the most basic levels of life on earth.

I think that in a modern, multicultural society, the situation is quite different than within the limited traditional group of religious/spiritual experts and experts-in-training.

The traditional warnings against boasting with one's spiritual accomplishments are contextualized by those warnings having been made within a limited group of experts and experts-in-training.

Those warnings may be dysfunctional and counterproductive when outside of their original reference frame.

Does anyone, really, not see the multiple levels upon which the cartoon shown above was not humorous?
Really?

As I've already commented on the cartoon - perhaps such boasting is in place in modern society.

From what I've seen, it certainly seems to be a way to prevail in communication situations.
The person who first makes an outrageous claim about their own spiritual accomplishment is likely to make everyone speechless and submissive (at least in effect, if not also in intent).
This can be observed here at the forums.

Whether by such prevailing, such people gain true friends and supporters - that is another matter.

The concept of God, in one form or another, lies at the heart of all philosophical meaning.
Is it any wonder, then, that the concept exists to begin with. Or that we so desperately desire to believe.

Because without it, and without any real understanding of what death actually is without it, we remove the veneer through which we perceive reality.

You really, really, do not want to do that.

I'm not sure what you mean here ...

For those who have already put forward self-effacement and humility as an indicator of elightenment, it should also be an indicator that I emphatically reject the premises upon which you base your judgement.

Nobody suggested that self-effacement and humility are indicators of elightenment; I don't know of any descriptions of enlightened beings who would be self-effacing and humble (at least not in the ordinary sense of "humble").

The idea is, rather, that when a person truly is enlightened, their abilities speak for themselves, the person does not need to announce themselves as being enlightened.

 

[Bells]

I'm not sure what you mean here ...

What is death without God?

Nothing..

 

[wynn]

What is death without God?

Nothing..

Explain.

Are you referring to some Abrahamic concept?

 

[Bells]

Explain.

Are you referring to some Abrahamic concept?

Not at all.

What I was referring to was whether you, or anyone for that matter, are able to accept that death without God or another deity amounts to nothing. An end with nothing further to come.

So what is death without God? Or.. What is death without any notion of spirituality?

It amounts to nothing.

It amounts to an end and then nothing. And there are some who believe that society would fail if there was nothing to look forward to or to strive towards.

 

[wynn]

As to the question at hand, the answer is, simply, me.

No -
As to the question at hand, the answer is, simply, I.

:huh:

 

[wynn]

What I was referring to was whether you, or anyone for that matter, are able to accept that death without God or another deity amounts to nothing. An end with nothing further to come.

There is the Buddhist idea of karma and reincarnation, according to which death is anything but not nothing.

So what is death without God? Or.. What is death without any notion of spirituality?

It amounts to nothing.

It's not nothing - it's the end of you.

It amounts to an end and then nothing. And there are some who believe that society would fail if there was nothing to look forward to or to strive towards.

I suppose there are people who see things this way, but this problem is not in my focus.

There is a problem of consistency, namely:
If in the Grand Scheme of Things, one human life is insignificant and ends at death, then how can that human life, while it lasts, nevertheless have significance?

How can you believe that your life has a meaning, a purpose, that it is worth living, if you also believe that in the Grand Scheme of Things, you don't matter?

And please, this isn't an invitation to grand displays of humility. It is a logi(isti)cal problem.

 

[Bells]

There is the Buddhist idea of karma and reincarnation, according to which death is anything but not nothing.

So you believe there has to be something?

It's not nothing - it's the end of you.

Certainly. But for me, personally, it is nothing.

I suppose there are people who see things this way, but this problem is not in my focus.

There is a but..

There is a problem of consistency, namely:
If in the Grand Scheme of Things, one human life is insignificant and ends at death, then how can that human life, while it lasts, nevertheless have significance?

I often ask myself how anyone in their right mind can consider their own significance in this universe?

How and why do we matter?

We do not. We matter to ourselves and our loved one's. But there is no "grand scheme of things". There is the size of the universe and all it contains and we are mere specs in time. We are important and significant in our own mind.

How can you believe that your life has a meaning, a purpose, that it is worth living, if you also believe that in the Grand Scheme of Things, you don't matter?

Very easily.

I don't matter. The universe will continue on its merry way and continue to expand without me. Whatever mark I leave, will matter only to those around me, who also do not matter "in the Grand Scheme of Things". Because there is no "Grand Scheme of Things". We only tell ourselves there is to give ourselves comfort and a sense of self importance and self-worth.

And please, this isn't an invitation to grand displays of humility. It is a logi(isti)cal problem.

What humility?

I think the logistical problem exists when people start to believe they matter in whatever "Grand Scheme of Things" they perceive exists.

 

[scheherazade]

Originally posted by wynn:
How can you believe that your life has a meaning, a purpose, that it is worth living, if you also believe that in the Grand Scheme of Things, you don't matter?

And please, this isn't an invitation to grand displays of humility. It is a logi(isti)cal problem.

The experience of life itself has value to the one doing the experiencing, in my opinion, and as we pretty much all interact with other beings, our life experiences enhance and contribute to the experience of others.

Religions suggest that there is more than this.

Those who do not profess to religion perhaps accept that life is an experience of finite duration which is to be valued precisely because it is tenuous and unique to each individual.

 

[kx000]

^Ha! Good one!

In fact, all the religious/spiritual traditions that I am familiar with, state that claiming to be advanced is a sure sign that one is not advanced.

I walk with confidence, I know where I stand, and I'm not afraid to let it be known.

 

[wynn]

The experience of life itself has value to the one doing the experiencing, in my opinion, and as we pretty much all interact with other beings, our life experiences enhance and contribute to the experience of others.

Religions suggest that there is more than this.

Those who do not profess to religion perhaps accept that life is an experience of finite duration which is to be valued precisely because it is tenuous and unique to each individual.

The thing is, Sche, that you do not discuss. You have a history of refusing to actually discuss things.
You say something, but then instead of actually discussing your view, or offering counterarguments when someone challenges your view, you take it personally or claim there is no point in discussing stuff.

:wallbang:

For millennia, philosophers, theologians, politicians and others have discussed this topic of "the meaning of life."
But then you march in with your dogmatic views. Perhaps it is a mark of a "spiritually advanced person" to be a dogmatist - just claim something and refuse to engage. Is such dogmatism is an act of will, a result of deliberate action - or is it something that either comes naturally, or not at all ...

 

[wynn]

I often ask myself how anyone in their right mind can consider their own significance in this universe?

It's a simple matter of consistency.
Ie.: If one is to matter at all, one has to matter in the Grand Scheme of Things.

We do not. We matter to ourselves and our loved one's. But there is no "grand scheme of things". There is the size of the universe and all it contains and we are mere specs in time. We are important and significant in our own mind.

How can we ever matter - if we don't matter at all?

The universe will continue on its merry way and continue to expand without me.

How can you possibly know that?

Because there is no "Grand Scheme of Things".

How can you possibly know that???

The concept of "the Grand Scheme of Things" is unfalsifiable.

We only tell ourselves there is to give ourselves comfort and a sense of self importance and self-worth.

How on earth do people come to such interpretations??

One must have a very simplistic, rudimentary understanding of "the Grand Scheme of Things" to think it is a mere ego-indulgent fantasy.

What humility?

If you think that feeling important is proof of one's ego-shit, then, in contrast, your stance that we're not important is an attempt to express humility.

 

[Neverfly]

How can we ever matter - if we don't matter at all?

This, right here, is the very most underlying premise you operate by.

Your entire worldview is based on your opinion of what matters. Without a grand scheme or plan or design, you feel like nothing would matter at all.
You seem incapable of accepting the idea that you can matter to you without having a position in a Grand Plan.
It's rather fascinating.

For millennia, philosophers, theologians, politicians and others have discussed this topic of "the meaning of life."
But then you march in with your dogmatic views. Perhaps it is a mark of a "spiritually advanced person" to be a dogmatist - just claim something and refuse to engage. Is such dogmatism is an act of will, a result of deliberate action - or is it something that either comes naturally, or not at all ...

Which brings us to the point I made above.
It begs the question; Is it worth it to engage you in the topic?

You like to make your own rules, Wynn. You like to control the flow of the discussion in your favor- and that favor is the one that elicits your Grand Plan that you accept as an axiom.

There is a difference between discussing a topic and having it discussed.

Unless there is a control outside of yourself and your opponent- it is not a discussion. You are the one that disregards that outside control- you want to keep it within yourself. Your Way.

The thread itself reflects your control and your view. You ask about spiritually advanced which makes no sense on its own. It has an unestablished premise- an assumed one. You then try to promote that that assumed and unestablished thing can have a novice or advanced state without ever really showing that the premise has any validity at all.
No one can be "Spiritually advanced."

No one can really be blamed for lacking the tolerance to deal with all these absurdities and to do so the way you demand it should be done. You rely heavily on the unfalsifiable because it allows you to not have to support claims.

 

[Bells]

It's a simple matter of consistency.
Ie.: If one is to matter at all, one has to matter in the Grand Scheme of Things.

Why?

How can we ever matter - if we don't matter at all?

Because we matter to ourselves. We are selfish and self-obsessed creatures.

How can you possibly know that?

Because when people die, life continues.

Having watched loved ones die, as in actually physically die, there is no earth shattering moment. We continue on regardless.

The universe continues to expand..

How can you possibly know that???

The concept of "the Grand Scheme of Things" is unfalsifiable.

Prove to me that there is a "Grand Scheme of Things"..

How on earth do people come to such interpretations??

One must have a very simplistic, rudimentary understanding of "the Grand Scheme of Things" to think it is a mere ego-indulgent fantasy.

Do you actually believe there is a "Grand Scheme of Things"? Can you tell me what that is then?

How can you know you have a purpose? Isn't the belief that you somehow matter in "the Grand Scheme of Things" more ego-indulgent? Why do you think you matter at all in any scheme of things, let alone "the Grand Scheme of Things"?

If you think that feeling important is proof of one's ego-shit, then, in contrast, your stance that we're not important is an attempt to express humility.

Not at all.

I find it interesting that you feel that way though.

 

[wynn]

This, right here, is the very most underlying premise you operate by.

Your entire worldview is based on your opinion of what matters. Without a grand scheme or plan or design, you feel like nothing would matter at all.
You seem incapable of accepting the idea that you can matter to you without having a position in a Grand Plan.
It's rather fascinating.


Which brings us to the point I made above.
It begs the question; Is it worth it to engage you in the topic?

You like to make your own rules, Wynn. You like to control the flow of the discussion in your favor- and that favor is the one that elicits your Grand Plan that you accept as an axiom.

There is a difference between discussing a topic and having it discussed.

Unless there is a control outside of yourself and your opponent- it is not a discussion. You are the one that disregards that outside control- you want to keep it within yourself. Your Way.

The thread itself reflects your control and your view. You ask about spiritually advanced which makes no sense on its own. It has an unestablished premise- an assumed one. You then try to promote that that assumed and unestablished thing can have a novice or advanced state without ever really showing that the premise has any validity at all.
No one can be "Spiritually advanced."

No one can really be blamed for lacking the tolerance to deal with all these absurdities and to do so the way you demand it should be done. You rely heavily on the unfalsifiable because it allows you to not have to support claims.

You - and everyone else - are most cordially invited to provide an outlook superior to mine!

It is precisely what I am looking for.


But bear in mind that any form of negativity on your part detracts from my accepting the outlook you present.

 

[Neverfly]

You - and everyone else - are most cordially invited to provide an outlook superior to mine!

It is precisely what I am looking for.


But bear in mind that any form of negativity on your part detracts from my accepting the outlook you present.

Sometimes things are negative, Wynn. It's not all roses.
And even if it was- there would still be thorns.

Whether I can provide an outlook that is superior or not is a bit hard to imagine. I can provide a different outlook- I can even believe that mine is superior.
But it only could be superior if you chose to perceive it that way.

 

[wynn]

It's a simple matter of consistency.
Ie.: If one is to matter at all, one has to matter in the Grand Scheme of Things.

Why?

Because of consistency:

A part is relevant only if the whole of which it is part, is relevant.
If the whole is relevant, all its parts are relevant.
A part derives its relevance from the relevance of the whole.

The Universe is relevant.
A human is part of the Universe.
Therefore, a human is relevant.

It cannot be that the whole would be relevant, but not its part.


But you are welcome to present otherwise.

Because we matter to ourselves. We are selfish and self-obsessed creatures.

That sounds more like a political statement, rather than a logical one.

How can you possibly know that?

Because when people die, life continues.

This is based a culturally-specific premise that all there is to a human is the body.
This premise is not universally held.

Having watched loved ones die, as in actually physically die, there is no earth shattering moment. We continue on regardless.

The universe continues to expand..

This seems to suggest that if a person truly would be significant, the Earth would stop spinning and the Sun would stop shining; and since upon a person's death, this doesn't happen, it must be that the person is insignificant.

That seems an odd way to measure a human's significance. Almost like "Unless you're (like) God, you're nothing."

Prove to me that there is a "Grand Scheme of Things"..

You've been operating with it all along. Without assuming that there is a "Grand Scheme of Things," it is impossible to claim that

I often ask myself how anyone in their right mind can consider their own significance in this universe?

How and why do we matter?

We do not.

- - -

Do you actually believe there is a "Grand Scheme of Things"? Can you tell me what that is then?

How can you know you have a purpose? Isn't the belief that you somehow matter in "the Grand Scheme of Things" more ego-indulgent? Why do you think you matter at all in any scheme of things, let alone "the Grand Scheme of Things"?

If you think that feeling important is proof of one's ego-shit, then, in contrast, your stance that we're not important is an attempt to express humility.

Not at all.

I find it interesting that you feel that way though.

Actually, I'm refering to a frequent point expressed by atheists, for example (off the top of my head, I remembered spidergoat and SciWriter, but there are more):

Most religions have no concept of humility because they claim to be the purveyors of truth. It takes a scientist to have humility because science emphasizes doubt. Theism in particular not only has no monopoly, because it teaches arrogance and self-righteousness.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2840500&postcount=16

Some of the nature systems have reached higher electro-bio-chemical-mechanical forms capable of wider sensing and higher thought considerations. A plant or a snail may but sense sun, moisture, light, dark, insects, warm, cold, ph…

There are such hierarchies in man-made forms, too, such as in a car versus a bike.

Theists may be unsettled as just being a part of organic nature, as they are never so humble but desire special status, even to the point of being God-made and having reward.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2739450&highlight=humble#post2739450

Back to the supposed 'soul':

“Oh my, religious ones, how vain and proud you all are! what hubris, conceit, self-love, and vanity have you to claim such full self-importance to demand so much from the universe… That you would even claim an angelic vapor that drives a living being, provides character, morality, and consciousness, on top of a burdensome, fragile, and expensive organ such as a brain ne’er to be used?

It’s a silliness born from exaggerated self-worth, an invisible hilarity—becoming a merciless indoctrination. May you all soon recover your humility.”

As such spoke the humble graybearded one to show the truth of what we all are: mammal, organic; past narcissism and self-adulation, to the bio-electro-chemical organism evolved upon a planet near a star, in the long and winding mindless way of slow time, dust, and selection by death that sifts the best from the rest: evolution.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2706215&postcount=152

Some humans have much pride, meaning little humility, thinking that stars shine and flowers grow just for their special promise. What hubris!
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2741987&postcount=44

Wishful Thinking

Pride: Ego exaggerates self-importance
To claim that we’re specially created,
Deserving a divine destiny.
Humility: we’re electrochemical.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2709476&postcount=1472

Ego is tripping up some who give such special importance to the self—its supposedly grandiose origin, meaning, and destiny. This self-importance notion leads them to claim that stuff itself is holy and divine and that they, great as they are, must be of God. They want Intelligence to be behind intelligence but then they place themselves at the dead end of not having INTELLIGENCE behind Intelligence, etc. They went to the complete wrong direction of having more complexity to be the answer for lessor complexity, rather than more simplicity, as even ever seen. These humans are vainglorious, their ego of special self meaning admitting no humility whatsoever.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2781515&postcount=29

Do theists have an exaggerated sense of self-worth?

 

[wynn]

Sometimes things are negative, Wynn. It's not all roses.
And even if it was- there would still be thorns.

Whether I can provide an outlook that is superior or not is a bit hard to imagine. I can provide a different outlook- I can even believe that mine is superior.
But it only could be superior if you chose to perceive it that way.

Not at all. A truly superior outlook would require no act of deliberate acceptance from me.
A truly superior outlook would be one which I could not but instantly internalize or realize.

 

[Neverfly]

Not at all. A truly superior outlook would require no act of deliberate acceptance from me.
A truly superior outlook would be one which I could not but instantly internalize or realize.

Bull. If it was that easy, you'd have figured a few things out by now. You'd have accepted clear evidence and let go of personal beliefs by now. If that was true, you'd stop rationalizing and justifying beliefs.

You'd stop worrying about whether your life has meaning or not and just live it.