Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (42986)	7/2/1999 1:16:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I haven't looked at your definitions yet, Michael, because I have to hit the sack. But bear in mind that in order to have a fruitful dialogue, both parties to the dialogue have to agree on a common definition. Quite true. No joke. Joan

To: greenspirit who wrote (42986)	7/2/1999 5:49:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

Michael, re: your definitions of secular humanism, socialism, and the political left. 1) Secular humanism. The link you have provided gives a summary of basic beliefs that people who accept the label of "secular humanists" profess. It's rather lengthy, but I agree it will suffice, for our purposes. 2) Your "definition" of "socialism" will not suffice. You have provided a link to the web page of an obscure Austrialian outfit called the "International Socialist Organization." Their particular credo can't begin to define what socialism "is." There is Fourierist socialism, Owenite socialism, Marxist socialism, revolutionary socialism, evolutionary socialism, Soviet communism, Maoism, democratic socialism, etc. There is even Christian socialism. Check it out: encyclopedia.com I think that when you use the word "socialism" you have either 1) to specify which particular kind of socialism you have in mind, or 2) to limit yourself to the narrowest possible dictionary definition, one that hopefully would cover the common core of all these disparate "socialisms." For example: "a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." (From the American Heritage Dictionary.) I find that particular formulation too vague to be entirely "sufficient," but it's a start. As for "political left," it is not a synonym for "socialism." If I recall correctly (I'm not quite sure on this one), the term "left" originated as a designation of those parties and groups that sat to the left of the chamber in the French Assembly (the more "radical" ones), as opposed to those who sat on the right(the more "conservative" ones). Thus, the actual character and beliefs of "The Left" will shift from time to time and from country to country. In some countries, there never was a "socialist" Left. And in the Soviet Union, there was a "Right" as well as a "Left" -- but it too was "socialist"! I will get to "spirituality" in a separate post...:-) Joan

To: greenspirit who wrote (42986)	7/2/1999 7:25:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

Re: Defining "spirituality" Michael, the link you supplied me with is a start. But there are three different definitions there, and they do not coincide. (Besides, they all sound a bit too New-Agey to me.) So, I set out on a web search too. And this is one of the things I found (from a Protestant minister's sermon): We hear more and more talk about “spirituality” these days. Sometimes it is within a context of “new age” notions accompanied by free form music, crystals and astrological charts. Sometimes it is within a context of conversation about the body's own healing powers in the face of diseases like cancer. Sometimes it is within a context of pentecostalism and “speaking in tongues.” Sometimes it is within the context of a call for renewal in mainline churches like the Disciples of Christ. Recently, we have heard the word “spirituality” used in a context of ecological concerns and in the men's movement. Whatever the context, we are hearing more and more references to “spirituality” and to matters of the spirit. These days, "spirituality" is a word used by all sorts of people from all sorts of perspectives so that, by itself, it has little practical meaning. Here are some interesting observations on the proliferation of "spirituality" specifically on the net: For those of us who are "online" there is empirical evidence to be accessed via our computers that vast numbers of people are involved with "things spiritual." The term "spirituality" has a number of loosely connected connotations and is difficult to define clearly, but whatever its meaning, it is certainly a much used term on the Internet14 -- from 4 to 25 times more popular than the term "materialism." On 29 March, 1997, I consulted several major WWW search engines to locate sites or documents on the web containing the word "spirituality" and -- for the sake of comparison -- sites or documents on the web containing the words "materialism" and "religion." The numbers varied widely by type of search engine but remained fairly stable in terms of the spirituality/materialism/ religion ratio. spirituality materialism religion 64,707 11,111 669,686 (Alta Vista) 33,299 7,176 278,469 (Excite) 29,894 6,810 263,038 (Infoseek) 12,965 2,481 20,077 (Lycos) 3,777 510 28,713 (Open Text) 2,862 370 16,107 (Webcrawler) 199 4 809 (Yahoo) To me these numbers confirm three suspicions I already harbored when I began the searches : (a) that human beings -- no matter how supposedly "secular" -- yearn for some sort of relationship with whatever it is they consider "transcendent" or "a-temporal" or "immaterial," (b) that neither God nor religiousness is dead, and (c) that the term "spirituality" is so general as to have very little concrete meaning unless it is further defined.. astro.ocis.temple.edu By the way, the article from which this passage is taken is well worth reading in its entirety, IMO. Sometimes the attempt is made to define a particular type of "spirituality." For example, here are a whole string of definitions of Catholic "spirituality": op.org And here is a stab at defining "humanistic spirituality": ethicalsociety.org And so on. Nowhere, in my net ramblings, did I encounter a definition of "spirituality" corresponding to the meaning you appeared to be giving it. As I understood (or misunderstood) you, you were using the word "spirituality" to designate all the higher faculties of man -- his reason, his emotions, his capacity for belief, his various pursuits -- in other words, everything that distinguishes him from the mere animal. His "higher nature," in short. Well, you have a perfect right to use the term to mean anything you want it to. Everybody else does. But don't be surprised if the people you are talking to understand the word in a completely different way, which will end up with both of you talking at cross-purposes. I'd suggest using the terms "higher nature" and "lower nature" rather than "spirituality" and "physicality." They are certainly traditional enough, and folks will know right away what you mean. :-) Joan