"I would really like to see what a group this diverse could agree upon as a common ground for the meaning of spirituality."

This could be a very interesting and challenging exercise, but it would have to begin with common and well-definable terms.

For example, the following input from FIB

"Is spirit the essences in each of us, the spark that gives and sustains life, is that bound to the mind and not to the flesh and therefore has no limits to time and space?"

Already I doubt if "essences in us that are not limited to time and space" is something mutually observable and accepted. Perhaps, to begin, if FIB could ask "must there be an essence within us that transcends time and space"? Or, perhaps, is the feeling that there is something so transcendental necessary for the spiritual life?

Alternatively, what is the spiritual life? Can it be defined in a more universally and acceptable manner?. i.e. a feeling of equanimity with the physical world and humanity, or a confidence that one's philosophy can eventually bring satisfaction, peace, or knowledge?

I agree with Horus that we must continue to simplify the model if ever we are to reach agreement.

You cannot assume anything unprovable while having a rational discussion. We might as well talk about "tweezlegarbs": the source of all life in the universe. (sarcasm, for those not familiar)

The concept of a spirit, or soul, was derived from our philosophical (and theological) analysis of our consciousness. I think, therefore I am. But who are we? Surely we MUST be more than just animals. Are we really? Animals can communicate, feel emotions, and make decisions. The only thing they lack is overinflated egos and higher computational ability. If we have souls, then so do animals. Unfortunately, we have yet to find (even detect) a single soul in any of the humans and animals that we've studied over our history.

I think that spirituality has to be broken down to the "spirit" of humanity. The ideals that we claim, but seldom live up to. The things that we all know to be right, but resist due to greed and selfishness. Fairness, equality, justice, charity, humility, TOLERANCE, caring, and forgiveness, to name a few.

Typically, life is locked in a bitter struggle for survival. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime. This can be seen even in human history. Most conflicts are over resources. We have managed to achieve enough success to allow for "higher" pursuits, like those previously mentioned. Spirituality should be defined as the desire for such pursuits, not divine preference...

ALL/ well it seems so far no definitiion of spirit has emerged. Let us start with what we know. I AM here, YOU are here, the world is here, the universe is here. Now if God exists is God here? If here, in what form. Spirit or in all life that exists-is God life? Then are we gods?

FIB,

We are going to have to build from basics before we assume that there even are such things as gods. Perhaps a simple way to do this is to take the most basic term to this area of discussion and try to devise a definition that is acceptable to all. It might not be accepted as existing, but at least there would be something defined that can be debated. We may find that we have to get pretty basic before we get to that point before we can start building to something that is so highly debatable as gods.

For example, can anyone come up with a mutually agreeable definition for the term "human spirit"?

If not, we might have to drop to something even more basic such as "faith".

Perhaps the existence of the soul or spirit as entity is something about which we can be agnostic. But if spirituallity is something that happens in our brains, a penchant toward higher pursuits, does that make it any less valuable? I like Horus09's question "is the feeling that there is something so transcendental <spirit or god> necessary for the spiritual life?" I think that among the salient qualities of human spirituallity is the desire for communcation with others and our feelings of mutual interconnectedness. That is one of the things that makes this forum so attractive that we spend so much time here - plus the ego indulgence of bashing opinions with which we disagree :-)
The philosopher Parmenides said something to the effect that we cannot know what truly "is" and we cannot imagine what "is not", but in between lies the way of seeming - the realm of worthy opinions and good stories. The exercise of qualifing our worthy opinions will take a lot of patience, but it will be quite rewarding.

If you think of us all as "kindred spirits", or one big family (if you will), then spirituality can be easily divorced from religion and belief in the supernatural...

To all. I'm busy running errands today, but will try to drop in occasionally.

I believe the soul is the area that contains the mind, the will, and the emotions for animals and humans. It is the "conscious mind". The spirit is the area that keeps the soul in HARMONY with ourself and others, and has creative ability. It also communicates with others, as well as animals. It may or may not be in all animals. It is the "sub-conscious mind". I believe that the subconscious (spirit) never sleeps and that it has the ability to communicate with humans or animals, but maybe not at a conscious level at this time. Perhaps that is why animals can sense such things as fear or anger etc. Things such as joy, peace, love, hate, fear, anger etc. are all spiritual in nature, but manifest themselves through the physical body or physical realm (by brain) in order to produce emotions, sounds images etc. Humans have the ability to reverse the spiritual to be either positive or negative to create either emotion based on the desire or motivation to do so. However, a spirit that is in darkness (separation) cannot function properly and causes problems to itself or others, including disrupting the earth. The Holy Spirit is the spirit (force, entity, karma, or whatever)that keeps all things in harmony to work together. Unfortunately when individuals try to separate themselves from harmony and peace through greed and selfishness, it causes spiritual death (separation) and unbalance to all creation. Hope that makes sense...Any ideas???

Emg,

Its a good start, albeit a complex series of concepts. I, personally, would like to go over them and ask such things as, "Could I simplify this to be that" etc. I might assume that there would be quite a bit of give and take in deciding on useful common terms. Eventually, once all are clear on acceptable terminology, questions of a more transcendental nature could be posed as well as litmus tests as to their validity or simple usefulness.

Sure H9!

AE, I believe you are correct of being kindred spirits as one family. The best comparison I can think of is that of the world-wide web. It is composed of many systems, yet it is one that is all-knowing and omni-present all over the world. It knows (comtains info of)good and evil. Each individual computer is independent of all others, yet can still function as any or all of them. If one computer is disconnected or separated from the web, it becomes "lost" and unable to function to it's full capacity. A virus (sin) can cause a malfunction or chaos to the individual computer or entire web if left unattended. Unfortunately greed or selfishness from the programmer produces the viruses. The only way to stop the viruses is to de-program them or eliminate/change the programmer.

All/ you are doing a word dance, going in circles-nothing can come of this! Let me make this statement and you must prove I am wrong. The Mind is separate from the brain, according to a book I just read by Dr. Jeffry M. Schwartz, M.D. called-The Mind & The Brain. He discovered this while working with obsessive-compulsive disorder patients over many years. The will of the mind when applied can rewire the the brain. So it seems the mind/spirit/self functions under different rules than flesh, and my be the missing link for the spirit Can anyone proove this is wrong.

FiB
I think the phenomenon you have described is similar to the way that many brain skills can be releared and relocated in new areas of the brain following a traumatic injury such as a stroke. I don't think that it proves the case for a mind/body dualism. There are many known locations within the brain that can be stimulated to induce distinct states of consciousness including the state of prayerfulness or even religious ecstacy.
I'm not asking you to concede or abandon any beliefs that you hold about the transcendental nature of a spirit entity, but I repeat the question I asked before: Would the feelings and activity that we associate with Spirituality be any less valid or valuable if they are based on the activity of our brains instead of a spirit entity? Why?
It may appear tedious at first, but I think Horus09 has laid out a sound MO. If we can agree on the qualitative characteristics and functions of "human spirituality," then we can pose questions of a more transcendental nature and examine them. I don't want to squeeze the life out of this discussion hashing out definitions, but we must search for common ground. I think that we are most likely to find it in examining the foundations of our beliefs as human beings.

fnie/ I am asking you to prove this Dr. wrong that the mind is not separate from the brain. If you can not do that, then that may be in fact and the truth we all cherish.

FiB
Is Dr. Dr. Schwartz really ascerting that there is a Mind entity that exists outside of the brain? Or is he merely ascerting that our mental activities when properly directed can register in the form lasting changes in brain activity? That is what the brain does. It forms neural pathways and networks to learn or to heal, whatever. There are certainly meaningful and useful distinctions between "mind" and "brain" in language, but they in no way prove that minds exist outside of brains. However, I will also point out that allowing that our brains are centrally involved in all of the activities we refer to under the rubrics of mind soul and spirit does not prove that there is no transcndental connection or demand any strict materialism.

I agre with FIB that the mind is separate from the brain. I have also heard that some scientists are saying that the mind appears to be in the entire body, not just in the brain area. Personally, I believe the brain decodes the communication from the mind/spirit to use it for the body. If the subconscious spirit has been reprogrammed, then it can cause the body to function better or differently. However, if the brain malfunctions, info get twisted around and the body performs in an odd way.

fnie/ No the Doctor seems to know that it is a separate enity. The first time I heard of the book I thinks was on Cspan book review. There was a dsipute between Dr. Schwartz and another scientist that thought the mind and brain were the same. To me Dr. S won the argument hands down, so I bought the book( it is really hard to read due to all the back and forth science stuff) but when I finished and reviewed it his proof made logical sense to me. Now I was an agnostic at the time. I now am a believer in God but not in the Bibical God, I now am a believer in something much bigger in the God process than all the ancient texts.

That proves that Dr. Schwartz is a good debater. There are evangelical apologists who have won many debates, but that does not make them right. Nevertheless, I am curious and I will look up Dr. Jeffry Schwartz. In the meantime, why have you not answered answered any of the questions I have posed to you? What is the problem if we allow that the brain is centrally involved in everything we are? I agree with Woody Allen that the brain is my second favorite organ.

[quote] I now am a believer in God but not in the Bibical God, I now am a believer in something much bigger in the God process than all the ancient texts.[/quote]

Can you expand in what "something much bigger" is?

(quote) What is the problem if we allow that the brain is centrally involved in everything we are?

That question can be used both ways. Asking a spiritual person to believe in carnal humanity by faith is like asking a carnal person to believe in spiritual humanity by faith.

What is the problem if we allow that God is centrally involved in everything we are?

I love the quote by Crowley. I've often had thoughts of man as a disease on this planet in a way. Look at what we are doing to it - and it isn't likely to get much better. This is one reason that I have great respect for cultures that are more in touch with nature and our role as caretakers. Taking responsibility - possibly this is what our God or gods expect from us.

emg:
The obvious answer is that we all have direct experience and evidence of the brain's existence and function. We don't need to assume the existence of an unobservable entity. You seem to have dismissed scientific findings about the functions of the brain in favor of assumed entities of faith. The question does not really work the same way in both directions. We are trying to start from the observable aspects of spirituallit in our own experience to see what we can agree upon.

FiB
Since I have not yet had time to read Dr. Schwartz's book, could you present a brief summary of his argument an supporting evidence for our consideration? While I'm impressed that the book seems to have affected you very deeply, it is to my limited knowledge still a minority - or singular - opinion in the field. How many of his peers and collegues has Dr. Schwartz actually persuaded? Dr. Julian Jaynes's book, The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicammeral Mind, has been cited several times in on various threads of the forum. Dr. Jaynes has not persuaded the majority of scientists with his work but the book remains an interesting and provocative source that has influenced many people. Perhaps a description of your journey from being agnostic to where you are now would be
the way to go. If we are going to discuss the nature of spirituality, we are going to have to get personal eventually.

As a mother, I don't know how to explain some of the insight or instincts that come with the territory. The way that you seem to know or sense things without having any material way of knowing them. I'm not just speaking of logical conclusions based on some kind of evidence - but a loved one far away being hurt and feeling it. I know people want to deal with things beyond "feelings". But those feelings play a big role in mothering and because that is a female thing I think it is under rated.

fnie/ I apparently missed some of your questions or they flew over my head. As mentioned by others here I think. The brain operates on a form of electric signals-firings, It is still amazing to me how TV and radio works-I am not a smart man but I am a thinker. If the mind is a source out side of the brain operating on the same source of energy could it not send inspirations. Many Indian tribes have special words for knowledge without experience. Is the saying mind over matter an empty saying. I will need to finf the book and scan it for pencil marks-but since I have over 3000 books in garage and house will need to get back to you.

Red/ I think you are fixed as a Bible apologist, and nothing I share with you would be of value. It is necessary in conversing that the terminology be of familar understanding. I know you operate within your pew pressures and that enviroment. Bigger means a wider range of possible realities. thanks anyway

fnie/ Ok I found the book-the problem it is 400 pages and I have hundreds of check marks where he builds his complex case. I will insert this small segement on page 374-The shift in understanding inspired by nueroplasticity and the power of mind to shape brain undermines the claims of materialists determinism that humans are essentially nothing more than fleshy computers spitting out the behavorial results of some inescapable neurogentic program. The brain is going to do what the brain was always going to do, say the materialists. Both modern physics and contemporary neuroscience reply that materialists are wrong. However-you will just need read the book and build your belief or disbelief based on evidence. I certainly do not want to struggle reading the book again-it is not for mental sissies.

f_nietzsche, many of the scientific findings about the brain are assumed. A person such as myself has never been inside the brain to see how it functions. As far as I know, it only controls the heart, breathing etc. and that is by "faith" according to what some scientist claims. It is hard for a person who has witnessed instantaneous healings, intuition, divine guidance or miracles, to believe that the brain was responsible for it. Here is a definition from Wikipedia that I found for spiritual. - connection to something "greater" than oneself.

Emg/ you seem to have a handle on this, but there is no VERIFIABLE healing. No rasing from the dead. No blind see, no rejevanted parts like4 hands, feet legs fingers, toes. Nothing that can be tested before or after the healings take place. Now-there are miracle cures, caused by misdiagnosis or the original invention not God's intervention. The power of the placebo effect and the production of indorfins are real, and are part of the bodies survival arsenal.These healing ministries are scamers and charlatans fleecing the sheep, they are wolves.

FIB, my dad was healed instantly of a liver problem. He went to the Dr. to have surgery, and there was nothing wrong. My brother and his wife were diagnosed as not being able to have children, but they now have 2. There are many cases such as these, even people growing limbs and being raised from the dead. A child drowned in a pool a while back, and was under water for 30 minutes, he was revived after someone found him and prayed over him. I know there are scammers and such, but there are miracles that happen every day that can't be explained.

Emg et al.,
This would really be a game of “catch-up” for me as, since Friday, a number of you have decided to pursue god-concepts already. This post is devoted to Emg’s thoughtful expose on spirituality provided on Friday, for which I am looking for common ground.

First, I attempt to resolve some of the terms into ideas that I am more comfortable with and with which you may agree. If not, that is good, it focuses us in areas of misunderstanding or disagreement. I then pose some questions, beyond simple definitions that of interest for mutual discussion or analysis.

Definition of terms (basically I went through your descriptions in the order in which they were presented).

1. The soul contains the mind, will and emotions. (Soul>mind, will, emotions)
2. Soul = conscious mind
3. Spirit = creativity, communicative abilities
4. Spirit = Subconscious mind, communication can occur at the subconscious level
5. Joy , peace love hate, fear anger are spiritual and give rise to emotions via
employment of the brain.

Not clear with the next statement is subconscious (spirit) = subconscious mind?
6. Spirit produces emotions, sounds, images via the brain.

Before I continue, I understand most of this, with just a tad of confusion over a couple of issues. I would also like to produce a reduction in terms, as in a couple of places you posed equivalency. If you are comfortable with this, let me know. I believe that, as the discussions continue, you may see that this simple reduction may not fully express your need for the separate terms, but it may be more obvious to me at that point why that is the case.

In your descriptions there are stated equivalencies for the soul being the conscious mind, and the spirit being the subconscious mind. That is agreeable to me, but to keep things simple, can we then refer to these two things as simply the conscious and subconscious mind and not use the terms soul and spirit, unless they become necessary for later conversations?
Most commonly joy, hatred, love, etc. are termed as emotions. I am not familiar with the term “emotion” in the context of being something that is caused by hatred, love etc. Would it confuse things to simply call these things, emotions?

Integrative concepts:

1. I have no problem with the idea that emotions may evolve from the subconscious mind, but they must eventually transmit to the conscious mind.
2. Also the concept that, subconsciously, we may communicate with others including animals seems plausible. Even though there may be deeper manifestations of this process I can imagine that, even with a “stiff upper lip” animals may sense our fear or anger by the elaboration of certain scents or subtle muscle tensions that we, ourselves, are not even aware. (I am not saying that there may even be communication at an “extra-sensory” level (of which we are consciously unaware): however, that would be a transcendental question that would have be analyzed separately.

3. “Spirit that is in darkness (separation) cannot function properly”. The terms employed here are rather subjective or even poetic, so I might be wrong in my interpretation. I would agree with the concept that the subconscious mind may be dysfunctional if it is in ignorance (darkness) and will not function properly. In fact, I would posit this situation for both the conscious mind and subconscious mind.

4. From your last statement, I would say that the Holy Spirit is some subconscious sharing of awareness among all people that are in tune with this or open to the experience. I would suspect that at some level I would concur with this, but may even go further. I would say that this sharing could transcend the subconscious and include the conscious. I would say that the more open we are to ourselves, our bodies, and minds that we may be more able to communicate with one another non-verbally and verbally. If people close themselves to the experience and do not try to unde