A diatribe inspired by "kungfu cowboy", as promised!!

Cowboy,

As I promised.

You wrote:

"But once spirituality is involved, it seems that there must be some type of awareness to cause, design, and create the structure. And that is because that requires order. Unless spitituality actually does not refer to something concrete and real, and is merely a trick we play on our own minds."
__________________________________________________ ____

This comment by you prompted me to want to think about the question of just what spirituality is, whether spirituality is concrete and real and where does spirituality lead, or in other words, What is the purpose of spirituality?

It seems that spirituality is defined in many ways. To some it means the occult practices. This is common in the modern new age movement. Spirituality is demonstrated by an individual’s knowledge and acceptance of occult abilities and the supposed higher wisdom these abilities access. To some spirituality is measured by the following of precise formula of behavior and ceremonial observances including worship and religious rites. This is common among “people of the Book”, i.e. Judaics, Christians and Islamics. To some spirituality is measured by supposed higher codes of behavior that include non-violence, vegetarianism, purification practices of fasting and meditation and understanding the natural rhythms of life. This is common among Buddhist, Taoist and Yoga traditions. And lastly we have what is commonly termed the “traditional religions”. These include Native American, Druidic and Wiccan practitioners. These follow systems of nature worship and magic. I am speaking here in general terms and not specific cases, of course there will be a multiplicity of variation amongst each of these generalized schools of thought.

Some people believe that there is one and only one method of attaining salvation. Others believe that all paths lead to the top of the mountain.

But what does it all mean? What is it that we are all attempting to accomplish? Are we all reaching for the same goal, or does each of us have different goals in mind? How do any of us know for sure that the path we have chosen is truly the right path?

Each of these are important questions that those who seek spirituality in whatever form it takes should be asking.

Of first importance should be what our ultimate goal is. If we do not know where we are going we will not be able to choose the best method for reaching our destination. To decide where we are going we must first decide just what it means to be spiritual. To discover what it means to be spiritual we must define what the spirit is. Here is a synopsis of our first three questions:

1) What is the Spirit?
2) What does it mean to be spiritual?
3) What is our ultimate spiritual goal, or rather the goal of spirituality?

__________________________________________________ ____

1) What is the Spirit?
To determine what the Spirit is we must first decide if the Spirit actually exists, and if it does exist how we can demonstrate it. To do this we must understand the two major paradigms or world views of mankind; the Occidental view and the Oriental view.

The Occidental view is generally oriented to the hard sciences. We have a tendency to consider something real if it can be experienced with the senses and measured using instruments. In general terms, tangible equals real to the Occidental mind. To this way of thinking, anything that is not tangible or measurable with instruments is subject to suspicion, i.e. anything that is subjective is either not real or less real.

The Oriental view of reality leans toward subjective experiences as being the true reality and the “real” world (physical, tangible and measurable world) as being an illusion. This can be illustrated by the well known comment made by Hui-neng the 6th patriarch of Chan:

“It happened that one day, when a pennant was blown about by the wind, two Bhikkhus entered into a dispute as to what it was that was in motion, the wind or the pennant. As they could not settle their difference I submitted to them that it was neither, and that what actually moved was their own mind.”

To this way of thinking, real is a function of what the mind projects onto the physical plane. By extension the mind is real and physical reality is merely our subjectivity projected outward onto the physical canvas of life, in other words the direct opposite of the Occidental view.

What does all this mean to the question of the reality of the Spirit?

How we chose to define reality will determine our conclusions about whether there is ample proof for the existence of the Spirit. If reality is what is tangible and measurable than out standard of proof is different than if reality springs from our subjective mind.

To the Occidental mind, if the Spirit exists it must be measurable, to the Oriental mind if the Spirit exists it must be experienced.

The closest evidence I have come across that may indicate the presence of the Spirit in measurable terms is a little known test performed by Dr. Duncan MacDougall in 1907 and published in the journal “American Medicine”. Dr. MacDougall surmised that if humans have a Spirit that the personality occupies, than this Spirit must occupy space and therefore be measurable, because anything that occupies space must consist of matter.

The following is a direct quote from that article:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>“My first subject was a man dying of tuberculosis. It seemed to me best to select a patient dying with a disease that produces great exhaustion, the death occurring with little or no muscular movement, because in such a case the beam could be kept more perfectly at balance and any loss occurring readily noted.
The patient was under observation for three hours and forty minutes before death, lying on a bed arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales.
The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat.
During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come.
At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.
This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds.
The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss.
There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we explain it? “[/quote]
In his article, Dr. MacDougall includes 4 other study cases with similar results and one final case that was so hurried that it did not meet the scientific criterion even though there was a measurable loss of weight. Interestingly enough, Dr. MacDougall performed the same test on 15 dogs ranging in weight from 15-70 lbs. Dr. MacDougall writes, “The same experiments were carried out on fifteen dogs, surrounded by every precaution to obtain accuracy and the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death. “

While Dr. MacDougall is careful to state that this is not exact proof of a Spirit, it does prove that a phenomenon of unknown origin occurs at the time of death that would appear to indicate the possibility of a tangible Spirit.

This is enough to get us going for now. I have children that require some attention. Let’s have some fun here.

I will continue when I can and let’s see what everyone else has to say.

Sincerely,

Scott

[This message was edited by Scott R. Brown on 10-16-01 at 02:24 AM.]

[This message was edited by Scott R. Brown on 10-16-01 at 02:26 AM.]

Man, you weren't kidding! :D

Ok, I have a question: but what about Occidentals minds trained in Oriental theory, or Oriental minds trained in Occidental theory? Or either trained in both, or neither trained in either. For that matter, can't they all be describing aspects of an identical reality?

I think, (and also feel), that there must and should be only one true and absolute reality. To what purpose does the great Whatever (if there is one)create and maintain differentiation? For us to argue and theorize about? On a physical level, everything is eventually made of the same stuff, except only at different concentrations controlled by electrostatic forces are separate properties of matter realized(roughly).

And everyhing we consider as mental or physical processes arise from the interactions of these same-yet-different forms of matter.

But is there an intangible "something else" that motivates us, and gives us intent and identity? Who knows! From a chemical standpoint, there are no processes that occur in a human body that
cannot be duplicated outside it. Yet there is something there that does not exist (or at least we cannot yet detect) in these experimental ractions. Of course, our understanding of the nature of awareness and consciousness is not very well developed.

It is "my" theory that an emergence of a "me" from a bag of chemical reactions occurred as only a means of regulation those reactions as we developed from less to more complex beings, and something became necessary to act as an orchestrator of the whole mess. Then as we became "conscious" and it eventually became fortuitous for these newly aware beings to coexist, language evolved, which further defined us as cognizant indivuals who have identities.

Then as we developed enough tools and agriculture to have free time to worry about anything other than survival, we get freaked out by the immense and empty Nothing and Nobody there that we create fantastic fairy tales to sooth whatever it is that we call a soul, and lessen our fear and sorrow.

Not quite sure where I'm going with this, other than to say in short that it seems to me that there is some sort of something going on behind the scenes (or better, behind our minds) that is a supreme causal agent of what is considered as or is spiritual, and it probably reflects one simple and uniform truth that our understanding cannot really grasp (yet).

Oh, and those death-soul experimental results are very interesting!

Great post, Scott!

But I believe one slight common misconception though is that Buddhism states that the world's physical reality is JUST AN ILLUSION, when it actually states that is it only LIKE AN ILLUSION. In other words, while it does "exist," it's not ALL that exists. I.e. - there are many trees falling in the woods out there that most of us are not hearing. So it is highly arrogant and flat-out wrong for us to assume that the universe is limited by our perception of it. Especially when our perception is itself limited by our narrow 5 senses and technology. So the Eastern spiritual method is aimed at narrowing the gap between our subjective perception and objective reality, until they eventually intersect (enlightenment). This can also be seen scientifically, when you start getting down to quantum mechanics and the line between "reality" and "perception" starts blurring as well.

And so the "spirit" is determined to weigh approximately 3/4 of an ounce (23 grams)? How interesting!!!

WORSHIP=ENSLAVEMENT
ENLIGHTENMENT=FREEDOM

Fascinating. Except for the fact that scientists have now measured particles that do indeed exist and yet have no mass. His basic assumption that "anything that occupies space must consist of matter" is not exactly true, because our defination of matter has changed (it no longer assumes that matter has mass...which it what Scott seems to mean when he says "[the] Spirit must occupy space and therefore be measurable").

I belive this is a case of the simplest explaination (human error, fixed results, poor instruments of measurement) being the correct one, and not an indication that the spirit has mass. Occam's Razor wins again.

"She ain't got no muscles in her teeth."
- Cat

I am at work so I have little time to post but let me comment on perception. The perception that often is regarded as an illusion by great sages is that perception of dualities.

From wuji came taiji, from taiji came yin and yang, from yin and yang came the balance.

The void(nothingness) creates one, one creates two, two creates three.

When is Yang 100% soft or Yin 100% hard?

I will post more later.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/hist033/taiji_diagram.jpg

- Nexus

kungfu cowboy,

"I have a question: but what about Occidentals minds trained in Oriental theory, or Oriental minds trained in Occidental theory? Or either trained in both, or neither trained in either. For that matter, can't they all be describing aspects of an identical reality?”

Of necessity I have to make generalizations or the diatribe would be “ridiculously” long and circuitous, thus getting off the main topic, which is likely to occur anyway. If you read how I write I commonly use qualifying terms such as “generally”, “commonly”, and “some” instead of absolute terms such as “all”, “every” and “always”. This is an attempt to avoid having to address the exceptions to the rule. Certainly there are many examples of in between thinking or combination thinking, and ultimately each person has a unique world view. To hold a discussion we must of necessity generalize. We cannot, practically, address 5 billion different worldviews.

Because our perceptions vary from individual to individual it can be argued that each of us live in a different reality. The question is, “Is there a common “TRUE” reality that our individual realities are founded upon?”

I believe this is a portion of the “Truth”, “realization”, “enlightenment”, “God” that many of us are attempting to discover.

“And everyhing we consider as mental or physical processes arise from the interactions of these same-yet-different forms of matter”

This is one of the statements I hope to discuss eventually in this thread, but I am intending to build a foundation for it first. The questions is, “Is consciousness dependent on matter?” and “If so, can it be demonstrate it?” if we cannot demonstrate it, “How do we then know that consciousness is dependant on matter?”

“It is "my" theory that an emergence of a "me" from a bag of chemical reactions occurred as only a means of regulation those reactions as we developed from less to more complex beings, and something became necessary to act as an orchestra or of the whole mess. Then as we became "conscious" and it eventually became fortuitous for these newly aware beings to coexist, language evolved, which further defined us as cognizant individuals who have identities.”

An interesting theory, can you formulate an argument to support it. I am referring to an argument in the academic sense of a series of statements supporting a theory, and not the colloquial sense of an emotionally charged disagreement with no clear rational foundation.

There is an author, Matthew Alper, who wrote a book contending that there is a god part of the brain that was an evolutionary creation to address man’s fear of death. Here is the link to his website. I have not read his book. I have heard him interviewed and I was not impressed with his argument or theory, however it does coincide somewhat with your theory: http://www.godpart.com/

Origenx,

“But I believe one slight common misconception though is that Buddhism states that the world's physical reality is JUST AN ILLUSION, when it actually states that is it only LIKE AN ILLUSION. In other words, while it does "exist," it's not ALL that exists. I.e. - there are many trees falling in the woods out there that most of us are not hearing. So it is highly arrogant and flat-out wrong for us to assume that the universe is limited by our perception of it. Especially when our perception is itself limited by our narrow 5 senses and technology.”

What I specifically wrote was:

“The Oriental view of reality leans toward subjective experiences as being the true reality and the “real” world (physical, tangible and measurable world) as being an illusion.”

Followed by:

“To this way of thinking, real is a function of what the mind projects onto the physical plane. By extension the mind is real and physical reality is merely our subjectivity projected outward onto the physical canvas of life, in other words the direct opposite of the Occidental view.”

Certainly we would be wise to live our lives according to the belief that the physical reality is real. Fire still burns when we touch it whether we believe it will do so or not. If I jump off a 70-story building I will go “splat” when I hit the concrete below.

The Oriental view, as I have defined it, is not that “life is an illusion and therefore does not truly exist”, but that it is not where the real action is. For example, at a movie theater the screen is where we see the action of the movie, but that is mere appearance. It is a projection of light upon a media. The real action is in the projection booth (read, the mind) where the film and source of light is located.

Lyle,

“Fascinating. Except for the fact that scientists have now measured particles that do indeed exist and yet have no mass. His basic assumption that "anything that occupies space must consist of matter" is not exactly true, because our definition of matter has changed (it no longer assumes that matter has mass...which it what Scott seems to mean when he says "[the] Spirit must occupy space and therefore be measurable")."

If we want to get technical all we can say is that scientists have discovered particles that “appear” to have no “measurable” mass. Also, If they do not have mass are they truly particles. Photons have properties of a wave and properties of a particle depending on how they are measured. If something has no mass is it still a particle because it is similar to a particle in other respects. It all depends on how one wants to define something. Change the definition and we change our conclusions.

Further we are discussing mass on a sub-atomic level where the rules begin to blur. These rules do not of necessity apply to the macro-reality.

The statement: "[the] Spirit must occupy space and therefore be measurable") “ was Dr. MacDougall’s and not my own. I personally doubt that the Spirit has mass, at least as I personally define Spirit.

“I believe this is a case of the simplest explanation (human error, fixed results, poor instruments of measurement) being the correct one, and not an indication that the spirit has mass. Occam's Razor wins again.”

Occam’s razor states:

“entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”, “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity”

Occam’s razor is a concept generally accepted as means to measure the possibility or certainty of a conclusion. It is not a scientific fact; it is a rule of thumb. It is a common evasive expression used amongst academes when they cannot formulate a specific argument against a conclusion yet still believe it is false or rather believe it false without a rational foundation of support; another version of this is used by the Amazing Randy, a famous de-bunker of psychic phenomena. It states that if a magician can perform a trick that is similar to a psychic’s purported ability, then the psychic is performing a trick. This is the logical fallacy of attributing a characteristic of the specific to the general. Stated in a more common milieu, “I was once robbed by a Black man, therefore all Black men are criminals.”

The point being, just because we do not want to believe it does not mean it is false. Read the entire article for yourself. It should be on the net somewhere. If you cannot find it e-mail me and I will see if I can find a copy for you.

Nexus,

“The perception that often is regarded as an illusion by great sages is that perception of dualities.”

I agree with this view with the exception that I would state it thus: Reality is a once both One and Dual. I believe the Yin-Yang demonstrates this fact symbolically.

More later…

Sincerely,

Scott

[This message was edited by Scott R. Brown on 10-16-01 at 12:18 PM.]

[This message was edited by Scott R. Brown on 10-16-01 at 12:19 PM.]

[This message was edited by Scott R. Brown on 10-16-01 at 12:20 PM.]

[This message was edited by Scott R. Brown on 10-16-01 at 12:23 PM.]

I accept your literal translation of Occam's Razor, but I offer that in practice Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. It does not necesarrily apply to numbers or generalities. It applies to unnecessary extensions in conclusions derived from personal beliefs or hypothesis.

You do not need there to be a measurable spirit to explain this man's conlusions.

The comments regarding particle, matter, etc....

Ofcouse, it can be a matter (no pun intended) of semantics, but he uses this concept of all things occupying space - it seems to him that the occupation of space is a prerequisite for existence - to support his overextended conclusion (or at least the conclusion he wishes to imply). His spirit becomes some "thing" because he cannot figure out what else that "thing" might be that he cannot account for.

If I hear a voice upstairs, and there is noone there to make the sound, it must be a ghost?

More likely, as in this case, an extension of the imagination.

"She ain't got no muscles in her teeth."
- Cat

Lyle.

Good points. I agree with you in part. If you would re-read Dr. MacDougall's conclusion, that I paraphrased, he did not actually conclude it was the Spirit.

Lyle wrote:

It applies to unnecessary extensions in conclusions derived from personal beliefs or hypothesis.

That is the point I made and it is in fact frequently, "... a common evasive expression used amongst academes when they cannot formulate a specific argument against a conclusion yet still believe it is false or rather believe it false without a rational foundation of support... Just because an conclusion is complicated does not automatically make it incorrect. This is not science it is politics and politics as much a part of the scientific community as anywhere else.

I am not necessarily agreeing with Dr. MacDougall's "provisonal" conclusion. I am attempting to explore what the Spirit is and whether there is a rational "a posteriori" argument for its existance or any concrete scientific evidence for its existence. Dr. MacDougall's experiment is the only scientific experiment I have come across and it is nearly 100 years old without any apparent follow up by other scientists. Just because we can attribute an effect to a number of causes does not negate the possiblity of the casue offered. Stating that his "provisional" conclusion is false because you do not agree with his conclusion and attributing his findngs to circumstances you can neither identify or demonstrate is engaging in mere speculation, which while necessary for developing theories is unacceptable when determining conclusions. While his speculative conclusion is based upon certain unexplainable facts, he clearly states he is speculating. You cannot do the same all you have done is run to the refuge of a commonly abused rule of thumb.

Occam's razor is a tool and does not by necessity provide for accurate conclusions. It is merely a rule of thumb that is agreed upon, it appears to be demonstrtated through induction, but it is not an absolute. Scientists use it when they disagee with a conclsion, but cannot formulate a reasonalbe arguement for doing so.

Sincerely,

Scott

[This message was edited by Scott R. Brown on 10-16-01 at 03:12 PM.]

[This message was edited by Scott R. Brown on 10-16-01 at 03:14 PM.]

[This message was edited by Scott R. Brown on 10-16-01 at 03:16 PM.]