My responses are interlinear... On 9/11/2011 2:41 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
discussion Poor Richard's blogpost:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Amaia Arcos* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM Subject: Re: is there no p2p spirituality because there is no spirituality To: Michel Bauwens <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
I wish I had a printer so that I could see this article on paper and make notes on the side. From glancing over it:
/I lean towards natural causes, even if those causes turn out to be very subtle and perhaps very surprising. /(when talking about his "exotic" experiences) > eingh, spirituality is as natural as nature itself, not following.
My first problem with the term "spirituality" is semantic. I am interested in developing and promoting terminology that would carry more "invariant meaning across the global communities of interpretation" (a phrase I'm quoting from a FB post by Jonny Cache). The usage of the term "spirituality" has a long history. Both its historical and current usage by many implies a connotation of the supernatural or things outside the natural world. That's one problem I have with it, based on my skepticism toward mind-body dualism and natural-supernatural dualism. Amaia's comment above informally addresses this issue. I, like Amaia perhaps, consider many of the things implied by the term "spirit" to be part of nature. But others either imply or may infer a natural-supernatural dichotomy. This makes the term too ambiguous and "loaded" for me. Some use "spirituality" as a broad basket of ideas such as reverence for all life, the inter-relatedness of all life, altruism, morality, conscience, love of others, self-love, selflessness, virtue, etc. All these ideas have numerous different forms of expression in a variety of different "communities of interpretation" including current and past religious traditions as well as academic and secular bodies of knowledge. I think it is fair to say that the terms spirit, spiritual, and spirituality actually mean something different to each person who uses them, and one person often means different things at different times. That is actually much of thier appeal sometimes. Spirituality is a word you can use in mixed communities of interpretation to refer to high, noble, or virtuous aspects of human nature in a very generic, non-sectarian way. I don't object to its deliberately ambiguous use in that way as a "bridge" between diverse communities of interpretation when it is used to open common ground-- if further along in the process we intend to make a transition to less nebulous or ambiguous terms.
Yes, I am very aware the term "supernatural" exists, which if analysed means exactly the opposite of how people use it or the dictionary defines it. Super is a prefix that denotes "a lot of ", according to the same dictionary it means "specially/particularly" so supernatural, if anything, means very natural, a lot of natural, specially/particularly natural. And that is what spirituality is, precisely. Super-mega-natural.
That "rational" humans decided to go against their own logic rules in language in order to make sure they were seen as rejecting stuff they could not begin to comprehend is a complete different story.
su·per·nat·u·ral adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or adeity. 3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile ofsupernatural speed. 4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or otherunearthly beings; eerie; occult.
Language has not been engineered in a lab. It has evolved organically. I agree that "supernatural" could logically be defined or taken to mean the opposite of what it is commonly defined and taken to mean. However, as commonly used, it is far less ambiguous than spiritual. The words nature and natural are not without problems, too. Some (myself included) often use nature to mean all that exists, while others exclude man, god(s), ideas, man-made products, etc. from the realm of nature. It's hard to avoid using "natural" to distinguish things that are man-made from those that are not, but it has become all but meaningless on food package labeling. I often use the form "naturalistic" instead of natural to reduce some of the ambiguity. My main point would be that if we are trying to discuss anything in an even modestly formal or precise way, it is probably incumbent on us to give a brief definition of what we mean by the word "spirituality" if we choose to use it. My main objection to the word is that it often obfuscates meanings rather than conveying them. It is my opinion that some people use the word "spiritual" because it obfuscates their own specific beliefs, beliefs that might prove less defensible, even to themselves, if expressed more precisely. PR
On 9 September 2011 04:06, Michel Bauwens <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/spiritual-new-supernatural/
article via Poor Richard ...
Michel
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com;
Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-- “We would think and live better and be closer to our purpose as humans if we moved continuously on foot across the surface of the earth” Bruce Chatwin
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens