[P2P-F] Fwd: is there no p2p spirituality because there is no spirituality

Mon Sep 12 05:10:56 CEST 2011

Dear PR,

I really am looking forward to reading your original post properly and your
response here and come back to it. Ideally it would be done over coffee,
attended by anyone who might be interested - there would be 3 of us for sure
- but if it needs to be typed, typed it will have to be.

I am time-tied right now but coming back to supernatural and its meaning.. I
am a massive fan of playing with language, accepting new meaning for words
before they even become mainstream, etc, not a "proper" language fascist in
the slightest, quite the opposite, I love being informal with it but to
decide that something as simple as a prefix (super) is going to mean exactly
the opposite of what it means in just one particular case.. To me it is a
pretty obvious fallacy. And one used to reject something one cannot even
begin to comprehend, hence the need to reject it. Arrogance at its best in
my opinion.

Also, I am starting to wonder, this is not so much about rejecting spiritual
experiences/realities but about semantics, right? I don't know, but who
cares what people mean and/or if it differs in its characterisation? I know
my idea of spirituality is very different to that of an orthodox Muslim or
Catholic, or even a Hindu or a Buddhist, but if I am having a conversation
with one of them and look into their eyes, we both see/feel we believe and
respect God/higher force(s), I really feel no need for them to understand
God/souls/spirituality as I understand "it". I think the sense of respect
for a higher force that rules over us and is nothing but love is the same. I
also think it is the same as your scientific acceptance that all is
interconnected. The only thing we might differ in is the level of power,
control and understanding man (rational mind) has. To decide we are the
measure of all things is pretty crazy in my opinion :)

Disclaimer: I have been a terribly arrogant skeptic all of my life up until
fairly recently when "exotism" took over my life. I have fought it for the
longest time, because I could not accept that I was starting to believe
(with all my soul) what I had consistently rejected for so long. (Just to
make clear that I have not grown up blindly believing in faith and
superstition). I now accept I am not the centre of the universe and feel
extremely liberated by it all to be honest.

On 12 September 2011 01:34, Poor Richard <poor_richard at att.net> wrote:

> **
> My responses are interlinear...
>
>
> On 9/11/2011 2:41 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
>
> discussion Poor Richard's blogpost:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Amaia Arcos <amaia.arcos at googlemail.com>
> Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM
> Subject: Re: is there no p2p spirituality because there is no spirituality
> To: Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
>
>
> 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 <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/spiritual-new-supernatural/
> >
> > article via Poor Richard ...
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
>  --
> “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
>
>
>

-- 
“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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110912/3f27b352/attachment.htm 