Do we experience a spiritual world primarily as voyeurs?


... that is as a non participant ... like watching a baseball game and not playing the game or like watching a movie or TV ...

just something to think about ...

no?

Tags

  1. spiritual
  2. private matters
  3. voyerism

Comments


Seth says
My term "private" separates human behavior into two categories: public and private.  Private behavior is whatever you do or happens that is observable only by you.  If you sit motionless and not changing your facial expression with your eyes closed, you can still be doing things (like thinking or emoting or sensing etc) but an external observer is not privileged to know anything about those things ... those things are private.  But if you speak or wave your arms, the external observer will hear and see that ... those are public behaviors.  

When we observe an event but do not participate in it (except for our observation) i say we are viewing the event or are a voyeur to the event.  For example if you watch a video of a person stomping on another person on youtube, then you are being a voyeur to the stomping.  But if you are the stompee or the stomper or the video taper, you are participating in the event. 

If there is baggage in those concepts then let us tease it out specifically.  I can see two aspects of that  analysis that needs much more treatment.   One thing is in some contexts the mere observation of an event will change the event compounded with whether the participants know they are being observed or not.  If you walk in on your wife masturbating it will probably be a much different experience for her than if you never entered the room.  The other thing centers around the interpertation or story we tell about what happens.  Without some story events are hardly much of anything.  Frequently it is up to the observer to make up the story interpreting what happened ... other times the participants make up the story.  But when the observer makes up the story they are crossing the line from pure voyeur to participant. 

I don't see why we cannot talk about these things kinds of things clearly and without mystery and confusion.   To my knowledge spiritual experiences are private behavior.  Can we agree on that? 

Seth says
source: M wonders
(1) There is a big difference between what actually happened in a person’s life and the meaning or interpretation they made up about it
I wouldn't put it that way because i don't think that there is any preferred frame of reference where i can grock "what actually happened".  But, yes, there are certainly many different interpretations of the same events in my life ... it being pretty much up to me to choose which one to go with.
source: M also wonders
(2) People pursue an imaginary someday of satisfaction
Yes they do.  Me i try to avoid it.
source: ... and even more
(3) Human behavior is governed by a need to look good
Yes frequently ... i'm not so very sure that is a good idea .  I don't think there is necessarily any need there ... perhaps more of a want.  This morning i arose with the urge to suck badly.  We'll see how that works .
source: M restates
(4) People create their own meaning to life – none is inherent in the world
This is pretty much the same question as (1) above, but then it depends on what "world" you talk about.  Our culture, apart from our own choices, does impose meaning on us.  The world of moving matter has no "inherent meaning" itself ... all meaning is constructed or synthesized by human beings. 
source: M above
(5) People have “rackets”, which are “being right about” or giving excuses for one’s own actions
Yep, there are whole industries  devoted to that. 
source: and finally
(6) People can “transform” by simply declaring a new way of being instead of trying to change themselves in comparison to the past
Yes it seems so.  I wouldn't call it a transformation, more like a change of context.  Many times in my life i have tried to change some behavior, but then i just accepted that behavior and groked it didn't need changing. 

How would you answer those same questions?  What, if anything, does it have to do with the topic question?

Mark de LA says
There is an interesting parallel to the picture & subject of 11683 here.
     I would say it is exactly the opposite of what you suggest.  We wish we could be voyeurs into the spiritual, but apparently it takes some effort to get there.  I say we participate in the spiritual world every time we encounter real thoughts - not just recycled memories, rwg & the recycled contents the media has offered in the way of a trance of images, sound & words.  Just because the world of thoughts is less vivid than the sensory world of the physical (at this time) does not mean that we are using all the capability of our spiritual organs of thought. Paraphrasing something Seth once said "When God raps with your soul it doesn't sound like a whisper ...". Likewise, when you converse with the spiritual world you might encounter a reflection of your own being from the perspective of the Cosmos & not like it much & prefer to forget it.
     For me, some days it's the physical world that seems surreal. My soul & mind content doesn't need the physical from one perspective. I have on occasions asked myself what if the only thing that is real is the soul & mind & the physical world is just there to tease me into thinking of a reality where I can develop logic & rationality & clear headedness.
     From the Tai Shu Commentaries:
P.2019 #36,6 71-6-5-29-9-35-TUE (39.27 yrs ago)
" ...   In conversation with the Gods in order to learn what is of vital import to us we must adopt a frame of mind open & free from bias.  This is our world; clear sight is natural not weird!"


Mark de LA says
Isn't it odd how somebody who has been dead for 23.37 years can join the conversation from way back ~ 39.27 years ago.

Seth says
M, are you saying that just thinking real thoughts is participating in The Spiritual World?   I think the title question in this item is a real one ... i don't remember ever thinking it before or having ever been spoon fed from anywhere.  So when i though that was i participating in the Spiritual World?  How about when you guys read it here and ask yourself the same question ... were you actually have had done that ... were you then also participating in the spiritual world?  Now, incidentally, it is all fine with me ... as you may remember, i draw no schism in my world ... for me it is all one natural world ... no physical and spiritual duality is necessary for my ontology of processes.  Then too we can develop our mental activities just like a gymnast develops her abilities to move her body.  So what i take away from your response is that the spiritual world is just the real things that we think excluding mindless repetitions.  Is that substantially different than what you meant?  And, yes, it does seem similar to what GW was talking about there in his blue type.

D says
seth 2010-10-26 08:55:07 14495
M, are you saying that just thinking real thoughts is participating in The Spiritual World?   I think the title question in this item is a real one ... i don't remember ever thinking it before or having ever been spoon fed from anywhere.  So when i though that was i participating in the Spiritual World?  How about when you guys read it here and ask yourself the same question ... were you actually have had done that ... were you then also participating in the spiritual world?  Now, incidentally, it is all fine with me ... as you may remember, i draw no schism in my world ... for me it is all one natural world ... no physical and spiritual duality is necessary for my ontology of processes.  Then too we can develop our mental activities just like a gymnast develops her abilities to move her body.  So what i take away from your response is that the spiritual world is just the real things that we think excluding mindless repetitions.  Is that substantially different than what you meant?  And, yes, it does seem similar to what GW was talking about there in his blue type.
By using the distinction Spiritual World you have already, for analysis, taken apart what was one & divided it into two; your semi-scolding red herring being noted but not applicable. I have identified ontologically & experientially some thinking & perhaps feeling & willing components that are free from the physical. I use the terminology of others who have gone down similar paths rather than explain endlessly what I mean or describe things what defy our current language. I am also free of pseudo-psychological-metaphysics of materialists who explain these things in terms of the brain, neurons & electro-chemical impulses going through neuronets; the cauee-effect thingy probably being backwards in this latter case.


Seth says
Look, M, i was just trying to teas out what it actually is that we talk about here when we use the term "spiritual world" ... bearing in mind that our ontology is different.  Yours has a physical-spiritual division, mine does not ... for me the most general thing is a process.  My division happens between what is private, only i being privileged to experience, and what happens in public where everybody else can see hear or touch it.  But just because our ontology is different doesn't mean that we can't communicate to the point where we are talking about the same thing.  You see i too draw a distinction between repetitive mindless thoughts (and even public actions) and those which are creative and valuable.  I just don't class the one physical and the other spiritual. 
It is new to me is that you put thoughts on the spiritual side of the divide.  It is fine with me, i just didn't know that you considered thoughts to be spiritual things.  I'm not criticizing it, i just didn't know that you did it that way.  Obviously then we don't experience all of our thoughts as voyeurs and certainly not the ones which we synthesize and create ourselves ... but, yes, many that we get from the M$M we do experience as voyeurs.   So, see, we really don't have a substantive disagreement here ... we don't disagree with any experience ... we just call things differently because our words mean different things to each other.

Moving along in the direction of the crux of my point, let me describe an experience that i had recently that i think you would call spiritual, but i am not totally sure that  you would.  I was kind of going to sleep but was still very consciously aware.  A tree appeared in my visual plane but this tree was all intense and dripping with meaning ... it's meaning related somehow to the way it was growing ... the impression did not last long and soon faded. i have not been able to reproduce the experience.  Now when you have experiences like that do you call yourself having experiences of the spiritual world?

C says
... perhaps! I have all kinds of almost acid trip like things going on just before going to sleep if I am tired but slightly awake.  Since I was a little kid & first heard or became conscious of the term spiritual world I grokked that it was somewhere through the portal of thinking. Some say that thoughts are in fact spiritual beings.  Some say that we ourselves are thoughts of the hierarchies.
     Ever since I have taken on that possibility & not found it incongruent with reality or experience. The signal/noise ratio & focus determines what I grok when I follow that distinction. Recently the signal intermittently grows louder - mostly it is just a whisper.


Seth says
Ok, then, getting back to the question at hand ... I would say that i experienced the tree as a voyeur.  So now, perhaps you will see what my question is all about.  My thoughts, where they are not just repetitive bull shit, do not have that same voyeuristic nature.  I must work at them ... try this one ... try that one ... focus and exclude stuff which does not matter to the topic at hand.  But that was not so with the tree experience. There was no trial and error ... there was no effort to construct ... it just popped into my head as it were ... the only thing i did was to continue to look ... it was, after all, engrossing and entertaining. 

My question to you being: when, if ever, does your spiritual experiences of this nature depart from that voyeuristic nature and become something else ... and how?  How do you particupate in the spiritual world?  Obviously i am not talking about things you do socially and otherwise publicly, but rather those things you participate in which are private and privileged to you.   And obviously i am not talking about those things you are just thinking about. 

C says
seth 2010-10-27 10:34:15 14495
Ok, then, getting back to the question at hand ... I would say that i experienced the tree as a voyeur.  So now, perhaps you will see what my question is all about.  My thoughts, where they are not just repetitive bull shit, do not have that same voyeuristic nature.  I must work at them ... try this one ... try that one ... focus and exclude stuff which does not matter to the topic at hand.  But that was not so with the tree experience. There was no trial and error ... there was no effort to construct ... it just popped into my head as it were ... the only thing i did was to continue to look ... it was, after all, engrossing and entertaining. 

My question to you being: when, if ever, does your spiritual experiences of this nature depart from that voyeuristic nature and become something else ... and how?  How do you particupate in the spiritual world?  Obviously i am not talking about things you do socially and otherwise publicly, but rather those things you participate in which are private and privileged to you.   And obviously i am not talking about those things you are just thinking about. 
I am uncomfortable with the words voyeur, private & privileged as you use them to describe the process you are talking about - they are too restrictive & carry a lot of baggage with them unrelated to the matter at hand. Some say that a purely mathematical concept such as a circle is one you can participate as both inside & outside & can become one with from a particular point of view. Otherwise, PR describes the distinction of a thing-in-itself-for-itself. RS uses other examples where you meditate & construct a symbol and embed it's meaning into it until the whole thing takes on a life of its own: that's the imagination, inspiration & intuition route.  In thought work using concepts you are as much inside as you are outside (& as much outside as you are inside) the concept as long as you are not regurgitating memories & previous material - & working on it in a time framework of NOW. If you substitute the term being for spirit you might get somewhere - it is a crossover term useful in both worlds.
Hope some of that helps.

Mark de LA says
Nope!  The stuff you described is predominately psychology - nothing really spiritual in it; mostly human behavior. To most humans who focus upon experience without the psycho-babble & residue of human biology classes running through their system there appears to be two worlds & a rather stark contrast between them: (1) the rather 5-sense world of the physical & (2) the mind & feeling world (within which I also identify sleep & dreams). They are to me parallel universes which have affect upon each other. Organs of perception exist in both but are not necessarily useful to the same extent in each of the worlds.... etc.

Mark de LA says
Let me put it another way - if you have something truly private then keep it to yourself, it can have nothing to do with me & i have no possibility to access it. There is no reason to try to share it since to me it is your personal irrelevant shit! (IMHO of course)


Seth says
M 2010-10-28 11:05:28 14495
Let me put it another way - if you have something truly private then keep it to yourself, it can have nothing to do with me & i have no possibility to access it. There is no reason to try to share it since to me it is your personal irrelevant shit! (IMHO of course)

Most things of value and beauty start as private experiences and then get expressed publicly.  Knowing that my private experiences have nothing to do with you, unless i express them to you, is a strong motivator to me to express them to you !!! 

Denying or confusing that salient fact (me thinks ) is a grave error !

Mark de LA says
seth 2010-10-28 11:28:54 14495
M 2010-10-28 11:05:28 14495
Let me put it another way - if you have something truly private then keep it to yourself, it can have nothing to do with me & i have no possibility to access it. There is no reason to try to share it since to me it is your personal irrelevant shit! (IMHO of course)

Most things of value and beauty start as private experiences and then get expressed publicly.  Knowing that my private experiences have nothing to do with you, unless i express them to you, is a strong motivator to me to express them to you !!! 

Denying or confusing that salient fact (me thinks ) is a grave error !
Your expressing it is not the private thing itself. It's just the public image you want others to see; being just more of your Ego. Not sure that's valuable to me. I am not confused - if it's private then it is worthless to others, IMHO.


Seth says
source: M above
if it's private then it is worthless to others
Absolutely.  I agree.  And i don't know why you seem to be fighting that.

Bear in mind that being worthless to others, does not mean that it is worthless.  Private experience can have extreme value and beauty to the person experiencing it ... not only that but it is the inspiration for art, music, drama and all of those other things that make life worth living.  My philosophy here sacrifices nothing.

If we can accept that with no equivocation, then we can move on to the more interesting question:  Is spiritual experience private?

Mark de LA says
Private is just the wrong word to be using here as far as I am concerned. Serving as the inspiration for something is not the thing-in-itself.  Art which does not connect with the spiritual in others is just ego spreading narcissism; similar to blogging & facebook. I maintain that we are all connected spiritually nothing private about it. I am not arguing - just challenging.


Seth says
source: M in a couple of places above
Your expressing it is not the private thing itself.
...
Serving as the inspiration for something is not the thing-in-itself.
Just for the record, i totally agree with this.  Obviously an expression of a thing is not the thing ... a picture of a flower is not the flower.   Why do you need to keep saying emphasizing that in this context?

Seth says
source: M above
I maintain that we are all connected spiritually nothing private about it.
Could you elaborate on that?  Is that something that you experience?  If so how?

Mark de LA says
seth 2010-10-29 08:38:34 14495
source: M above
I maintain that we are all connected spiritually nothing private about it.
Could you elaborate on that?  Is that something that you experience?  If so how?
Well, it's a fact that we are all connected to each other by the Earth.  Sometimes the signal is very weak, sometimes it is hijacked & sometimes it is part of experience. When I look into another's eyes deeply & without judgement I experience that connection. There are also connections through the senses of speech & language. So far the computers are unable to master those even to the level of a 2 year old.

Mark de LA says
seth 2010-10-29 08:36:13 14495
source: M in a couple of places above
Your expressing it is not the private thing itself.
...
Serving as the inspiration for something is not the thing-in-itself.
Just for the record, i totally agree with this.  Obviously an expression of a thing is not the thing ... a picture of a flower is not the flower.   Why do you need to keep saying emphasizing that in this context?
If you are going to share something with another the other has to be able to access it & it has to have some kind of reality.


Mark de LA says
Strangely enough, I connect to the picture in this item by way of an experience I had in an altered state over 40 years ago - the fidelity is pretty good, but the experience itself nearly inexpressible.


C says
M 2010-10-29 10:04:28 14495
Strangely enough, I connect to the picture in this item by way of an experience I had in an altered state over 40 years ago - the fidelity is pretty good, but the experience itself nearly inexpressible.

FYI, the origin of the image is detailed here . I talk about it in private 5381.

Seth says
I found this tweet ...
source: by the Dalai Lama
Unlike physical progress, which is subject to natural restrictions, the qualities of the mind can be developed limitlessly.

...or represented differently ...


... to be pertain here.  Note the reference is to "mind" and not "spirit".  I think that the word "mind" refers to most of what the older term "spirit" used to refer to in the 18th and 19th century.  We could ask, What does the word "spirit" refer to that is not implicit in the word "mind" ?  That extra meaning is one of the things that i was trying to tease out with this dialogue.


Mark de LA says
Ever since the Council of Nicea in 325 AD the Catholic Church effectively covered up the 3-fold nature of man as Body, Soul & Spirit & went forward with just body & soul - thus maintaining their power.  You can get some of the idea here in the RS eLib. Now with ever increased materialism we have the notion of the soul as just the psychology that goes along with the morass of the electro-chemical storm in the brain & thinking + feeling. The church maintains its power over it's flock with the lack of reincarnation & a spirit-world that is not their part of their dominion & whose nature is freedom during Earth evolution.

We can continue on 14495 in public if you like

Seth says
Well i think that what we do in life and how we think in life and how we feel in life is important ... what we do with each other ... and the things we tell each other ... those moments we share ... to me those are life and what is important.   Nobody has ever shared a spiritual experience with me ... nor is it clear how they could ... the few experiences that i have had which might be called extrasensory were intense and interesting like a dream ... but did not affect my life ... nor is it clear to me how they could.  Those extrasensory experiences just appear to me to be private matters. 

C says
I wonder if Seth essentially agrees with the following:
  • There is a big difference between what actually happened in a person’s life and the meaning or interpretation they made up about it 
  • People pursue an imaginary someday of satisfaction
  • Human behavior is governed by a need to look good
  • People create their own meaning to life – none is inherent in the world
  • People have “rackets”, which are “being right about” or giving excuses for one’s own actions
  • People can “transform” by simply declaring a new way of being instead of trying to change themselves in comparison to the past



C says
seth 2010-10-31 13:44:37 14495
Well i think that what we do in life and how we think in life and how we feel in life is important ... what we do with each other ... and the things we tell each other ... those moments we share ... to me those are life and what is important.   Nobody has ever shared a spiritual experience with me ... nor is it clear how they could ... the few experiences that i have had which might be called extrasensory were intense and interesting like a dream ... but did not affect my life ... nor is it clear to me how they could.  Those extrasensory experiences just appear to me to be private matters. 
How about Love?
Kevin Lomax: What about love?John Milton: Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate.

C says
     I tend to agree with most of them - you can see the list here in the Wikipedia on Landmark Education's page. These were mostly inherited from EST & Werner Erhard. Mostly they pull out the dictionary when it comes to the question of the "meaning of life" & look up the word life.  These are in the same general  area as the topic, but more related to your statements about life just above it. Without mentioning the spiritual at all they hold that the world is created out of the language & conversations we have. It is interesting contrast (or not) to the context of John I,1.
     It is possible that another listen, but not hear; look, but not see; touch , but not feel - or as JC used to say Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. Matt, XIII,9 ... when he was explaining his parables. This blog is a proof of some of that.  The point is that because the spiritual world doesn't show itself to you or when it does it has no effect on your life means nothing in terms of it's existence nor sourcing of our lives. Existence of anything at all itself is most improbable; something infinitesimally small that goes BANG & creates all of it notwithstanding. Because you can't share your so-called private epiphanies doesn't mean another can't have the same one.


Mark de LA says
seth 2010-10-31 13:44:37 14495
Well i think that what we do in life and how we think in life and how we feel in life is important ... what we do with each other ... and the things we tell each other ... those moments we share ... to me those are life and what is important.   Nobody has ever shared a spiritual experience with me ... nor is it clear how they could ... the few experiences that i have had which might be called extrasensory were intense and interesting like a dream ... but did not affect my life ... nor is it clear to me how they could.  Those extrasensory experiences just appear to me to be private matters. 
Except for the privacy thingy, I tend to agree with the rest of your paragraph. One example of being (spirit) is the RWG. It is something unseen, as a total being, for most mortals & yet it inspires all of us individually & in groups. No one or combination of the 5 senses has access to it as a whole & yet it exists - powerfully so in our daily lives as a way of being. It is not private, we all have access to it.


Mark de LA says
That which was occult yesterday may not be occult today, especially because of the Internet. One needs to move on with the times, especially using the tools we have developed since childhood - technology & personality-wise.  If we are talking about things that can't be shared, we are talking about limitations - why do that? ... since they may be mostly personal. The RWG is a perfect example of something that is like an iceberg with the majority of its personality (or mass) below the water line - else what connects it to each other & up & down the hierarchies of distinction? It's not physical!


Seth says
M 2010-11-02 10:10:00 14495
seth 2010-11-02 09:14:08 14495
source: M above
Because you can't share your so-called private epiphanies doesn't mean another can't have the same one.
Yes certainly we can have epiphanies which are the same or similar.  But we will never know how similar they are unless we find ways to talk of them to each other honestly ... nor would we know how different they are.  I don't see that hiding these things is a useful way.  
I'm unclear what the red sentence is doing here or refers to.
Maybe focus on the RWG thingy would be a better example. It is almost universal, an experience both from the inside & outside. The distinction can be passed on from person to person in language & example. It applies at the individual, group, national & world levels. It is a way of being!

The red refers to taking the "occult" out of "occultism".

I don't get that RWG has much at all to do with the spiritual world ... nor does it usually remain a private behavior.  I though we were talking here about things that cannot be shared.

Seth says
source: M above
The RWG is a perfect example of something that is like an iceberg with the majority of its personality (or mass) below the water line - else what connects it to each other & up & down the hierarchies of distinction? It's not physical!

RWG is just a social behavior.  Social behavior is a process.   This for me is where your physical/meta-physical ontology breaks down.  If you are saying that the part of RWG which lies beneath the waters is spiritual, than you are communicating saying absolutely nothing to me.  Can say it differently ?

Seth says
source: M above
If we are talking about things that can't be shared, we are talking about limitations - why do that? ... since they may be mostly personal.
For starters, kudos for illustrating your points with the iceberg .... very dramatic.

But i really don't know what you are talking about above.  For one thing there is not  anything that "can't be shared".  We share things by expressing them.  Spiritual experiences are no exception.  No, the expressions do not end up on the receiving end as direct experiences, but then no expressions ever do ... that is not the way we communicate.  Spiritual experiences just seem to be harder to express ... why? ... well just because we have not evolved a reliable public vocabulary for them.  I think many people and groups use the difficulty of expressing these deep seated experiences as an excuse to concoct whatever about them for their own motives. Since there is this tradition of not to talking about them, nobody can contradict what things are being said.  Now this idea that there are no limitations is a sweet one, and there is even some truth to it when properly understood.  But watch out for sweet ideas being peddled.  Watch out for what is mixed with them which gets swallowed like cool aid without sufficient critical awareness.  Me thinks it is best to separate these philosophical ideas out into their component parts and not assume the one, because you are enticed by the other.    


Seth says
M 2010-11-03 13:42:44 14495
seth 2010-11-03 09:41:17 14495
source: M above
The RWG is a perfect example of something that is like an iceberg with the majority of its personality (or mass) below the water line - else what connects it to each other & up & down the hierarchies of distinction? It's not physical!

RWG is just a social behavior.  Social behavior is a process.   This for me is where your physical/meta-physical ontology breaks down.  If you are saying that the part of RWG which lies beneath the waters is spiritual, than you are communicating saying absolutely nothing to me.  Can say it differently ?
~
~
Possibly, but I think of things differently.  I think of action & behavior as derivatives of being - similar in scope to velocity & acceleration. You can see something moving & grasp the idea of velocity.  Acceleration is a little harder to grasp. BTW, atoms & quarks etc are all below the surface & not ever visable as a direct experience & yet you folks in the material world believe in them. I say they are just the result of higher mathematics trying to explain things. BTW, what happens when they find the God particle?

Well yes certainly the behavior of a being gives  clues to it nature.   Where i know it is my nature (habit) to respond critically and perchance miss the point, then i can also try to suspend my criticism long enough to discover the point ... and there usually is a point apart from what i was being critical of.   For example, from yours above, i grock that behavior models being ... that is a good point .  

I've been reading Hawking's recent book where he goes into models in a very reasonable manner.  Apparently scientist do not ascribe reality to their models.  It seems that is left for the naive public to do.  Models are just equations and mechanisms that predict.  Different models can predict the same things, in which case there is no speculation on which one is "real".   The fun part is where a model predicts  a result before it is observed ... but even then we do not ascribe "reality" to the model; but we use the model which predicts the most observations. 

Mark de LA says
seth 2010-11-03 09:41:17 14495
source: M above
The RWG is a perfect example of something that is like an iceberg with the majority of its personality (or mass) below the water line - else what connects it to each other & up & down the hierarchies of distinction? It's not physical!

RWG is just a social behavior.  Social behavior is a process.   This for me is where your physical/meta-physical ontology breaks down.  If you are saying that the part of RWG which lies beneath the waters is spiritual, than you are communicating saying absolutely nothing to me.  Can say it differently ?
~
~
Possibly, but I think of things differently.  I think of action & behavior as derivatives of being - similar in scope to velocity & acceleration. You can see something moving & grasp the idea of velocity.  Acceleration is a little harder to grasp. BTW, atoms & quarks etc are all below the surface & not ever visable as a direct experience & yet you folks in the material world believe in them. I say they are just the result of higher mathematics trying to explain things. BTW, what happens when they find the God particle?


C says
M 2010-11-04 05:28:58 14495
Being is like the character you are playing while acting in your own life.

Expand & extend this to groups & relationships, nations & even the weather or religious & political entities & you might grokk how I hold the Spiritual World & Spiritual Beings. How much is above the water & how much is underneath (using the iceberg metaphor) depends upon your sense organs & consciousness of all kinds - not limited in any way to the 5 we all recite.

Seth says
M 2010-11-03 13:33:23 14495
seth 2010-11-03 09:07:36 14495
source: M above
If we are talking about things that can't be shared, we are talking about limitations - why do that? ... since they may be mostly personal.
For starters, kudos for illustrating your points with the iceberg .... very dramatic.

But i really don't know what you are talking about above.  For one thing there is not  anything that "can't be shared".  We share things by expressing them.  Spiritual experiences are no exception.  No, the expressions do not end up on the receiving end as direct experiences, but then no expressions ever do ... that is not the way we communicate.  Spiritual experiences just seem to be harder to express ... why? ... well just because we have not evolved a reliable public vocabulary for them.  I think many people and groups use the difficulty of expressing these deep seated experiences as an excuse to concoct whatever about them for their own motives. Since there is this tradition of not to talking about them, nobody can contradict what things are being said.  Now this idea that there are no limitations is a sweet one, and there is even some truth to it when properly understood.  But watch out for sweet ideas being peddled.  Watch out for what is mixed with them which gets swallowed like cool aid without sufficient critical awareness.  Me thinks it is best to separate these philosophical ideas out into their component parts and not assume the one, because you are enticed by the other.    

I guess you have come around to my point of view - there is nothing private  about the spiritual. If I were to share an apple with you a bite would be the only thing that would satisfy, not a concept, picture or movie.
My usage of "private" has not changed, nor have i "come around".   Thoughts, feelings, and spiritual experiences are private experiences.  I was talking about how those are shared.  All of those kind of things are shared by expressing them. 

Now you did introduced an interesting analogy ... spiritual experiences can be shared like sharing a bite of an apple.   It is a nice analogy.  Could you perchance describe a  specific experience like this which you shared with someone?  Or share with me such a spiritual apple?  I think that as children we are introduced to the spiritual world with the naive implication that it is like our social world where you can interact with other beings and things ...  talk to Arch Angel Michael ... pray to Jesus ... bite this spiritual cookie and it will nourish your spirit ...  as you take this  host in your mouth you will feel Jesus come into you.  Now you certainly can share experiences with me that will nourish my being, but those will be shared with me the way an artist shares their art or a musician shares their music or i get inspired by a dance or a kiss.   Sure things are symbolic ... but spiritual symbols work the same way as any other symbol that we communicate with.  In my opinion of course ... but i'm open, show me differently.   I'm too old and close to my death not to be honest about this.

[non referential comments deleted]

Mark de LA says
Actually, art is one way of sharing a part of a spiritual experience with another. Sort of blows up the privacy thingy. I also mentioned somewhere back there that looking into another's eyes with an non judging & loving eye is one that I have experienced. The proving in a scientific method manner that two have shared a spiritual being is limited by the powers of expression & language as well as the completeness of any one timeless moment.  I don't think it is worthwhile to quibble about symbols - they serve to focus our attention & consciousness.


Mark de LA says
Models are models - I've been cursed most of my life with knowing the distinction between the two. Global warming enthusiasts don't!  My comments on being the actor in my life, one of those kinds of almost direct experience, doesn't require a model unless the script I am writing (or you are writing for yourself) is the model you speak of. In which case, in a context of acting, occasionally & increasingly more often I notice the script & wonder: Who just noticed that script?
 

Seth says
M 2010-11-04 10:54:17 14495
Actually, art is one way of sharing a part of a spiritual experience with another. Sort of blows up the privacy thingy. I also mentioned somewhere back there that looking into another's eyes with an non judging & loving eye is one that I have experienced. The proving in a scientific method manner that two have shared a spiritual being is limited by the powers of expression & language as well as the completeness of any one timeless moment.  I don't think it is worthwhile to quibble about symbols - they serve to focus our attention & consciousness.

The only thing it could have blown would be your interpretation of my usage of the word "private".   I've explained it a nuber of times from different perspectives but you always seem to manage to misunderstand what i am saying.  Look, let us try it this way ... whenever you see my usage of the word "private" in this context, just substitute the following long phrase instead:  an experience which no one except the person having the experience feels. Thoughts, emotions, and spiritual experiences are private in this sense ... biting an apple is not ... when i bite an apple i taste the apple ... when you bite the same apple you taste the apple too. 

Seth says
M 2010-11-04 10:54:17 14495
Actually, art is one way of sharing a part of a spiritual experience with another. [deleted misunderstanding] I also mentioned somewhere back there that looking into another's eyes with an non judging & loving eye is one that I have experienced. The proving in a scientific method manner that two have shared a spiritual being is limited by the powers of expression & language as well as the completeness of any one timeless moment.  I don't think it is worthwhile to quibble about symbols - they serve to focus our attention & consciousness.

I agree.

Seth says
source: M above
My comments on being the actor in my life, one of those kinds of almost direct experience, doesn't require a model unless the script I am writing (or you are writing for yourself) is the model you speak of. In which case, in a context of acting, occasionally & increasingly more often I notice the script & wonder: Who just noticed that script?
I can't remember such a wonder ... but i will look for it

Mark de LA says
C 2010-11-04 07:41:31 14495
M 2010-11-04 05:28:58 14495
Being is like the character you are playing while acting in your own life.

Expand & extend this to groups & relationships, nations & even the weather or religious & political entities & you might grokk how I hold the Spiritual World & Spiritual Beings. How much is above the water & how much is underneath (using the iceberg metaphor) depends upon your sense organs & consciousness of all kinds - not limited in any way to the 5 we all recite.
This is what I was referring to above.


Mark de LA says
from BofNK (P.19) a quote: (in the context of ontology)
Self "knows."
Being just is.

Seth says
C 2010-11-12 10:26:26 14495
I miss our daily conversations
me too ... i guess we have to start another one.

See Also

  1. Thought Channeling with 101 viewings related by tag "spiritual".
  2. Thought [title (22396)] with 50 viewings related by tag "spiritual".
  3. Thought Tai Shu Yi King Commentary Brain uploaded with 1 viewings related by tag "spiritual".
  4. Thought about: gnosticism - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with 1 viewings related by tag "spiritual".
  5. Thought how much can we get on one page ... with 0 viewings related by tag "spiritual".
  6. Thought Evidence of Elves with 0 viewings related by tag "spiritual".
  7. Thought Thought, Feeling & Will + Consciousness with 0 viewings related by tag "spiritual".
  8. Thought Everything is Metaphysics with 0 viewings related by tag "spiritual".
  9. Thought Ontology with 0 viewings related by tag "spiritual".
  10. Thought public awareness vs private secrecy with 0 viewings related by tag "voyerism".