Why is spirituality and polyamory linked?

Hey, Kdt,

We have no idea what you mean by that.

It's perfectly clear to me. If I say I'm an atheist, you don't need to ask me which god I don't believe in. I don't believe in any of them. Likewise, if someone doesn't believe in spirituality, you don't need to ask which form of it he doesn't believe in.
 
Re (from River):


I don't believe in anything spiritual. In any way. Basically, if it's got the word "spirit" in it, I don't believe in it. The only spirits I believe in are the alcoholic kind. :)

I don't have a soul. I'm not going to be alive after I die. That's what I believe. If you want to redefine words so as to fit that belief, I may accept them as a hypothetical.

Most people who reject all notions of anything related to "spirituality" are not rejecting what they imagine they are rejecting -- i.e. "spirits" ... "invisible sky people"... etc. Oh... and "the afterlife" and the "continuity of the soul after death," etc.

Their rejection is usually made on knee-jerk "rational' grounds. But it as often as not turns out to be as irrational as the superstitious bullshit they are rightfully rejecting. Both knee-jerk anti-spirituality and knee-jerk "spiritualism" are superstitious; and both are equally suspicious and irrational
belief systems, in my opinion. Neither are open to perspective, dialogue or conversation. Just like bible-thumpers.
 
It's perfectly clear to me. If I say I'm an atheist, you don't need to ask me which god I don't believe in. I don't believe in any of them. Likewise, if someone doesn't believe in spirituality, you don't need to ask which form of it he doesn't believe in.

If you are as thick as a brick you don't. If you are incapable of thinking for yourself you don't. If you are overly self-certain you don't.... If you will not consult a dictionary you don't.

"Spirituality" is not a word referring to something superstitious or supernatural these days. As a clue. Look it up.

"Spirituality" is now a word which references a broad range of attitudes, such as those which, for example, respect science, philosophy, logic and reason.... Oh, and education. Look it up. Really. Don't just leap to imaginary conclusions based on your ol' aunt Betsy.

____________________-


While I'm not quite an atheist, I'm far closer to such than you may think. I'm a non-theist. Perhaps this is a bit too nuanced a term for you to grasp. It means I don't subscribe to a belief in god or gods. An atheist, on the other hand, subscribes to a belief which I do not find necessary or useful. She or he subscribes to a belief that there is no god, or gods. I have no use for such a belief system. Perhaps you do.
 
Last edited:
If I am superstitious then so be it. I know I can't prove what I believe; I just believe it. Certainly I'll listen to what other people have to say. But I admit I probably won't (as a result of what I hear) change my mind. Sorry if that offends or disappoints. :(
 
If I am superstitious then so be it. I know I can't prove what I believe; I just believe it. Certainly I'll listen to what other people have to say. But I admit I probably won't (as a result of what I hear) change my mind. Sorry if that offends or disappoints. :(

Kdt, by the very braod definition I and tens or hundreds of millions of other people give to "spirituality" (a very broad one) you are as spiritual as I am, and as spiritual as anyone in these fora. If you care about others, value life beyond your own, want to see all of life thrive and be well, that's a "spiritual" attitude as the term is now broadly used. Atheists are frequently spiritual, as are non-theists and theists. Spirituality has NOTHING to do with "spiritualism", or life-after-death, or god, or any other such speculation or superstition.

My complaint and argument here is about the use of the word, not about whether you believe in make believe invisible people, unicorns or gods. Etc. In fact, a very large portion of those who consider themselves to be "spiritual" have zero interest in gods, hell, after lives, prior lives or unicorns. I'm one of 'em.
 
Last edited:
Very well: By that definition I am spiritual and/or have spiritual beliefs.
 
Very well: By that definition I am spiritual and/or have spiritual beliefs.
Yeah, just like most people. Thanks for acknowledging.

Honestly, from my own personal perspective, being "spiritual" or having a "spiritual" outlook or perspective need not involve belief in any way whatsoever. We need not believe in that which we experience first hand for ourselves -- and if we don't draw our understanding, insight and knowledge from our own experience (but from the beliefs of others instead) what is that but superstition?

Many scientistic "true believers" are not in the least different from religeous "true believers". Both lack insight, information, understanding -- education. They resort to superstition as a consequence.
 
The connection is not that all polyamory people have this, just that it is more common.

Now there's an unexamined -- and thus utterly non-scientific - belief! The weird bias of "official scientists" is that most people are NOT "spiritual" in their "beliefs," ... all of which is so far beside the point that the "scientists" are obviously caught up in a mass "scientific" delusion.

Edit (7/20):

That second paragraph was poorly conceived. I only really meant to say that if social scientists presume that people are generally not "spiritual," because of some overly narrow definition of what the word "spiritual" means, that bias would result in an inaccurate report.
 
Last edited:
But science isn't about beliefs. It's about developing hypotheses and theories and then testing them to see what happens. Science is very fluid because new hypotheses come along and challenge or replace the old. I see science as not about believing in anything, but more about challenging beliefs.
 
Last edited:
But science isn't about beliefs.

Science need not be about beliefs in order for unquestioned biases (or beliefs) to influence, or creep into. the research report.
 
The major issue linked to neurodiversity is to prefer to construct one's own spiritual belief systems (rather than buying some ready-made religion), and about beliefs in supernatural things in general.

I think it is very important not to conflate "spirituality" with "belief in supernatural things in general".

One example of a fully "spiritual" tradition or movement with an explicit rejection of supernaturalism is secular buddhism (also most of modern buddhism, generally). Even more common are examples of very individual approaches to spiritual life outside of all which would commonly be thought of as "religion" or even belief systems.

Modern spirituality is often centered on the cultivation of well-being in one's self and in the larger world, and need not have any relation to notions of prior lives, after life, life after death, supernatural beings, etc....

Spirituality is not about "spirits".
 
If spirituality isn't about spirits, can I also say that oceanography isn't about oceans? Come on now ...
 
If spirituality isn't about spirits, can I also say that oceanography isn't about oceans? Come on now ...

If we take a cultural historic and etymological view on the topic, it''s not that difficult to understand why we now have many millions of naturalistic mystics and spiritual naturalists in our contemporary world -- that is, folks who reject a supernaturalist approach to "things spiritual".

Note that the Online Etymological Dictionary says of spirit that it is "of or pertaining to breath, breathing, wind, or air; pertaining to spirit...."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=spirit&searchmode=none

Here are some words from David Abram on the topic of breath and air...:

"After all, mind is a quintessentially quicksilver phenomenon, impossible to isolate and pin down. As soon as we try to ponder the character of awareness, we discover that it’s already escaped us — for it is really the pondering that we’re after, rather than the thing pondered. We find ourselves unable to get any distance from awareness, in order to examine it objectively, for wherever we step it is already there. Mind, in this sense, is very much like a medium in which we’re situated, like the ineffable air or atmosphere, from which we are simply unable to extricate ourselves without ceasing to exist. Everything we know or sense of ourselves is conditioned by this atmosphere. We are composed of this curious element, permeated by it, and hence can take no distance from it. (The contemporary word for the mind, psyche, was once the ancient Greek word for wind and breath, much as the word spirit derives from the Latin spiritus, meaning a breath or a gust of wind. Likewise, the modern term atmosphere is cognate with the Sanskrit word for the soul, atman, through their common origin in the older term atmos, which originally signified both air and soul indistinguishably: the atmosphere as the blustering soul of the world.)"
https://orionmagazine.org/article/the-air-aware/

Many people deeply associate all things "spiritual" with supernaturalism, but a very large portion of the population does not. I do not. But while my understanding of nature (a.k.a., the real world, reality, the universe, the cosmos...) is fully naturalistic, and thus consistent with what may be called philosophical modernism, I reject some of the pervasive modernist outlook. I especially reject the notion that because there is no god, no gods, no angels, no "spirits" that the Cosmos is basically devoid of ... what to call it? ... Um... Mystery. Not mystery (lower case m) but Mystery. Not a mystery novel with an answer sought to whodunit? But a radical Something which cannot be named but which can be experienced -- sometimes called "an inconceivable Inwardness" ... Folks have always struggled for words for It. It is not a god. It is Mystery, and when we open to It, It reveals Itself. It isn't even an It. It is not a thing at all -- nothing apart. It is everywhere, allwhen. It is not amenable to naming or defining or explaining. It is Being. It is Wonder. It is Depth. It is none and all of these. Without It, the universe appears to be a lot of dead material stuff, all separate, not Living. With It, the universe is felt to be Alive, Vital, Wonderous, Profound -- and most of all Welcoming, even Loving. One need not believe in It. I certainly do not! I am It, and so are you, and everyone / everything else.

But nothing I said is It. It is not a doctrine. It cannot be grasped or told. Nobody's story about It is complete or final or anywhere near adequate, which is why It is usually spoken of, if at all, in poetry and song.

It is Nature. And that's why I'm not interested in Supernaturalism.
 
Re: spirits ... if we mean the part of us that becomes a ghost after we die, I would consider that supernatural. But I have to acknowledge that definitions for spirit exist such as, "whatever makes us tick," "our breath," "our mind," etc.

Re: pinning the mind down ... can't be done right now, but that doesn't mean it will never be possible. With continually advancing technology, I think our distant descendants will comprehend how the brain works. You could argue that the mind can't examine itself, but humans (and possibly non-human animals as well) have been examining themselves for thousands of years at least.

Re: is the cosmos devoid of mystery ... definitely not, I must confess, and I'm happy to do so. If "all things" is an infinite quantity, and I hope it is, then perhaps we'll never know all things. I hope so. I hope there'll always be truths left to discover, like a grand treasure hunt staged by the multiverse.

Re: Mystery of a higher sort ... I have no idea. As Matthew Inman (creator of "The Oatmeal" comics) once said, trying to prove or disprove the existence of the divine is like trying to find your car keys using Microsoft Bing. I am technically an agnostic, even though I only believe in God and stuff like that only 1%. My younger brother believes in God, not as a Being, not a Whom, but as an infinite Awareness, of which we are all part and can sense through meditation or what have you.

My own beliefs are far less grand and romantic.

Re: the loving universe ... is indifferent to the sufferings of individuals such as Jews in German death camps. And while I do feel that there is a magic in discovery (e.g. New Horizons visiting Pluto), I can't see a benevolent essence watching over things. We are just here, to discover whatever little magic we can while we're still alive.

Do I want there to be "something greater" in store for me and others? I do.
 
If you are as thick as a brick you don't. If you are incapable of thinking for yourself you don't. If you are overly self-certain you don't.... If you will not consult a dictionary you don't.

If you just like to argue for the sake of argument, and especially if you enjoy slipping in a gratuitous insult here and there while you're at it, you do.

I've had enough of this debate, and far more than enough of you.
 
If you just like to argue for the sake of argument, and especially if you enjoy slipping in a gratuitous insult here and there while you're at it, you do.

I've had enough of this debate, and far more than enough of you.

Aww Isidore, I don't think River meant you are thick as a brick! I think what he said subsequent to that, about how he defines spirituality, is the meat behind his, I agree, harsh beginning.

I also find River sometimes quite pedantic, wordy, a bit overly romantic and even naive, but I do happen to agree with some of what he said about "Mystery."
 
If you just like to argue for the sake of argument, and especially if you enjoy slipping in a gratuitous insult here and there while you're at it, you do.

I've had enough of this debate, and far more than enough of you.

IsidoreNabi -

First, if you are reading here, I apologize to you for my inappropriate tone in my response to you. I should not have answered in that tone, even if what I said is true in principle. It all could have been said with more kindness of tone and less insultingly. I'm sorry.

Second, I allowed myself to become reactive, rather than responsive, in what I said following your post, which -- to my way of thinking -- was a straw man argument, and a very dismissive one at that. It was the combination of dismissiveness and straw man that set me on edge in my reaction. I should have handled it more maturely. Sorry.

In case the straw man in question is not clear to you, your post said, "It's perfectly clear to me. If I say I'm an atheist, you don't need to ask me which god I don't believe in. I don't believe in any of them. Likewise, if someone doesn't believe in spirituality, you don't need to ask which form of it he doesn't believe in." This may be true if that same person is not misunderstanding the term in an overly restrictive and narrow sense, and may benefit (for sake of conversation) by mention of a broader and more inclusive sense of the term in question.

Of course, a person is not required to be interested in how their habitual use of a word may not be very informed up-to-date, and it's perfectly okay to opt out of the conversation! But there would be no reason to do so in a dismissive and sarcastic tone. We all could do well to work on sensitivity of tone.
 
Last edited:
metimes quite pedantic, wordy, a bit overly romantic and even naive, but I do happen to agree with some of what he said about "Mystery."

Still, she thinks I'm cute -- especially my dimples. ;)
 
No, I haven't seen a pic and so I don't know about cuteness or dimples. River, you must be horny, I saw you also flirting with Angelina the other day. Let's stay on topic. I hope Isadore comes back, he is new and I want to make a good impression!
 
Back
Top