Waw Natlia, it makes me happy that a casual remark of me can inspire such thoughts! And thoughts they are: a clear expression of what a concept "induced" to you, of what you associate with it, whether on a personal or more general level. An exploration of a concept, that's my kinda stuff .  I think it's largely a matter of definition, as usual with concepts. "Spirituality" may mean a completely different thing to you than it means to me, and thus something may be spiritual for you but not for me, merely by the fact that we handle different definitions or notions. Personally, I like the "Book of Nature" very much and I can have very spiritual experiences during a walk in the fields or in the woods (each individual tree is hugged "in the mind"). But what IS spirituality then to me? The following is not so much a definition as a hypothesis. I would see it as giving a special (subjective) significance to a great variety of objects, whether they are natural or artificial, whether they are material or mental. Spirituality resides in the possibility of the mind to give a special meaning to some of its own contents, whatever they may be. A bit like noticing a person in a crowd: one automatically focusses on one specific individual for one reason or another, even if it's just a sweet voice or a miniskirt. So spirituality is a phenomenon that can be explained psychologically, as a remedy for our need for structuring, for valuation, for hiërarchy. One can experience spirituality in texts, in the words of the Master, in images, in gestures, in symbols, in everything in fact, as long as you make it that "special thing" that you need at that moment, as long as it becomes an axis of significance, a basis for structure, an explanation and a perspective. This brings me to the notion of organization. One could argue that spirituality is even the core element of organization, as our thoughts are organized around the object of spirituality, around what is considered really important or significant. Take traditional religion for instance: christian, muslim, whatever. A few facts, some legends, some texts and a mighty worldview is born, that makes its followers both blind and seeing, that makes them willing to give their lives, the very basis of their convictions. Einstein had a spiritual feeling about the universe, the focus of his great mind (he often used the term "Gott" in his expressions). Many of us give a special meaning to Love (whatever thàt may be)  and experience it spiritually, etc. etc. So spirituality is both very normal, general, human and various in content, and is more a psychological reflex than a handshake of God. Many people have a spiritual relationship to God, but doesn't he also has a core explanatory role? As I said: just a hypothesis. Any reaction, Nat?

Hi Nat

I was really baffled by that article in the Wikipedia! What a wonderful... Joke, and what a wonderful erudition! Is it the Internet that does that, that incredible extension of the mind? Is it the Internet that creates new syntheses, new constructions, new "ideosyncratic syncretisms" (what an expression )? Or is it the dead of the old ideas, of the old religions (which are nothing but temporary constructs of ideas) that creates these adventures?  Is it the death and putrefaction of the old interpretations -possibly hastened by more intensive communication- that gives off  these fascinating "odours", these wonderful moods?  I always thought of the Internet as a virtual Rome, or Alexandria.. or Babylon (mind your words in Babylon .  But I'm so old-fashioned, still trying to apply the old "categories" of criticism, of Socratic dialogue, of the "Spiel" of thesis and antithesis, of traditional discursive epistemology and so on. I rely upon "exploration", both scientific and philosophical, which I feel is the only infinity, the only immortality and the only source of (or chance for) Truth. We are condemned to explore, that's in our nature (and not only in ours); that's how we humans are built, and that's both our force and weakness. I confess to a true western restlessness that states that silence is "just" silence, and that human dignity and identity relies in words and thoughts, limited by both personal and more generally human factors. So I see "Eris" as a goddess to be transcended, in an eternal pathetic movement of grasping for the Truth, as the Truth itself  is unattainable and we just have to be pleased with "temporary results".  That's life as I feel it: an Unending Quest with glimpses of hope during privileged moments, when you obtain "results", when you formulate relativity or quantummechanics, or at least develop your own ideas, your personal frame of mind. But it's always a "theory", a construct of associated statements that we work on, and it may be "falsified" any moment. Or maybe it's just one general idea, expressed in a statement that can be investigated in some way, such as :"Spirituality has its origin in the mind's need to determine what is important, thus giving structure and organization to both mind and world". Whether pyramids or cathedrals or revolutions, they were all driven by some kind of "spirituality" (mind that certain forms of communism -or any other ideology- also have their spiritual side and are related to religions in many ways). What if I believe in -let's say- "material wealth"? Well, there was the biblical Mammon wasn't there, and when I see my mom she definitely has some "special" relationship with her money . One last word: spirituality is not necessarily individual, the same thoughts and "accents" can be shared by many people, thus building a party, a church and so on. Babylon is great, because it has it all, diversity and unity, discordia and tolerance, religion and science, and wonderful living and thinking people (what great Babylonians are sober Triss and visionary priestess Carm). Well I'm glad and honored to be around, but that's another story. Hope to "see" you all soon .

Nat, you must realize one thing: I love discussions! I never stop, and when there's enough booze around I go on until the break of day, exploring, formulating, analysing, being "left-hemispheric" to the extreme. I know very well that there is more in life, that there is intuïtion, poetry, a sense of magic. I know love and many other emotions and I know them all from personal experience. But communicating on that base is risky, it leads to unclarity, to misinterpretations and ultimately to non-communication. Non-rational communication feels to me like a game of dice: either you "hit the spot" or either you say nothing at all, while you think you said it all (remember the Taoïsts). So my common approach is indeed rational, with all the possibilities and limitations of rationality (do I understand well that you feel that as "confusing"? That makes me sad). The problem is that rationality requires a lot of effort and discipline, and I often loose track of the subject, while so many seductive sideways start to develop, each branch becoming a tree. If I remember well we started from the (possible) relationship between the notions of "spirituality" and "organization", which lead me to reduce the notion of "spirituality" to a psychological phenomenon, caused by our need for meaning and "structure". That is just one of several different approaches and now you touch a wholly different aspect of it, or rather several aspects that all have their relevance. I would like to quote one crucial expression of you: "But I know that the real-ness of anything perceived in an alternate state of mind is highly doubtful ". The question is plain and simple: what is "real"? Or more "confusing": what can be said about the property of real-ness related to things ("real-ness": that's a very old philosophical expression)?  There is a huge number of books on Ontology, the study (or even science) of "being" in its most general sense, with questions such as: what is the difference between being a stone and being a man, between being a stone and being an idea, between being a man and (a) God etc.). My feeling is -and here rationality plays a role as well as irrationality- that "being" is a matter of choice, that one chooses what's real, according to one's state of mind or convictions (if I remember well this is called "subjective idealism", but I have to look that up). All efforts of "prooving" real-ness have always failed, just like prooving the existence of God; so many brilliant minds have argued about that, until they (re)discovered Faith. No, when you hear and see the Anunaki they are really there, maybe only for you but that's enough; God was present for Jezus of Nazareth and he was able to change the world.  Don't bother about those who do not see what you see; they will see other things, accept or reject what they see (or think), and make their own reality anyway. So the discussion about different world-views also has to do with the famous conception of multiple worlds, we all live in a (slightly) different parallel universe, we can touch but never wholly merge. One is wrong if one believes that science has its criterion in reality. Scientific methodology only speaks about "phenomena" and not about reality, and it's only by carelessness  or lazyness that both are identified. And what about the liberating (Zen-)idea behind discordianism? And what about the revealing value of laughing? And what about the worth and potential of the agora of Babylon? I hope to talk about all that next time... .

Well Nat, when I read your mail I could not agree more, and because I know you would be pulling my leg I will not give you too much of an "analysis" . So just like you I only want to express a few random thoughts caused by reading your last posting. When I try to be "clear" and avoid confusion I often have the feeling that I'm not clear at all, because it's so difficult to determine what is clear or not. When I write for example (p -> q) -> (-q -> -p) then this is very clear and rational but it's also empty, abstract, irrelevant, unhuman etc. (in fact this is one of the great propositions of "formal" logic). But why do I think rationality is important? Why would I consider it as valuable? As I see it, rationality mainly has a critical function. It makes you ask questions like: What do you mean by that? Are these the key-elements involved? Can you define what you're talking about? Are you sure this is the consequence of your previous statement? Etc. etc. In fact rationality ought to remain a mean and never become an end in itself. It shows you how "unclean" many conversations are, especially when they use very difficult words, like God, Mind, Reality, Good and Bad... But what's the ultimate goal then? I won't make a statement on that, but being rational can never be the ultimate purpose in life. Maybe Wisdom is, and rationality is just a small part of that. The ultimate goal in life may be just... to live!

As to what is "real", that's a very difficult question. It's easy to say what reality is (the complete set of all the objects that have the property of being real) but that only evades the problem. As I said "real" is an absolutely unscientific metaphysical property, that can never be assigned for certain. It's one of the most dubious of all properties and one can just never proove it, and not even use it decently, without the threat of being retorical or even intolerant. You are correct when you say that something is real when the majority decides so, but the majority may be far from right, and giving it the right to determine what is real is almost like giving up reason itself. One can only state there are many worldviews, endlessly diverging and each a universe in its own, and each creating its own reality. When I say: "the Anunaki that appeared to Carmen are not real" I only say that my worldview is better than her's, that it has a "monopoly" on reality, which is just a plain lie and could only be explained by bad intentions (mind I don't have these; I love Carmen). If I would try I might see the Anunaki too but I neither feel the urge nor the need for doing that (why would I try to be Carmen?). One more thing about reality as the worldview of the majority. It is often just the worldview of a powerful elite, who manipulates the "need for reality" of the majority, by giving them a worldview that creates a reality in which the social status-quo is preserved (I'm thinking about television). Then men come like Jezus or Socrates or Marx who change on their own the worldview of many, and a new world emerges (but can one say it is real?). Ok, I will read more about discordianism now, I still don't understand it thoroughly, but it seems a refreshing and challenging philosophy. I'm thinking about my favourite Socratic dialogues and about the dynamics of Hegel (thesis versus antithesis), and how to compare these to it. And of course I think about those crazy illogical laughing Zen-bouddhists, who listen to the clapping of one hand or who are only allowed to enter the room through the wall. Does discordianism lead to something or is it just a game, or is it precisely the game that leads to something? Is it reason or madness? At first it seems like an ouroboros, discussing and agreeing forever in a circle. But at least it leads to discussion, and questions, and freedom, and tolerance, and laughter, and satori, and ... OK, I'll be back .

What a stimulating text, and quite a few subtleties! If you ask me whether I'm enjoying myself, h... I do! And the Janus-faced Eris-Aneris is nodding and laughing like an old fat Chinese deity! Ok, before I try to sketch human condition as that of a martyr-on-a-grid, before I talk about Icarus and Faust, before I talk about men and about God(s) and about Ishtar's ambivalent nature, before I talk about human reasoning and about divine feelings... I would like to ask one question: is this indeed the right place for this kind of hmm "adventures"? Yes, so much is possible in Babylonia, but this?? We could go on in e-mail if that's preferable? Perhaps some signal of the almighty webmaster would be of use here. Triss, have you fainted ? Can we go on with this? I feel like a car waiting for the green light, roaring and jumping up and down (remember those american movies?). Drop the handkerchief and we'll play "chicken". But not before your blessing...

Whatever I try, I cannot hold myself! I have to write down a few more contemplations on being and knowledge (sounds better in Latin ). If you look closely at it, mankind has always lived with a great Nostalgia for Reality, or let's call it just "being". For some reason he cannot live in a world composed of only thoughts and sense-data; there must be something behind that, even if we can never reach it or proove its existence. Some metaphysics are actually a hierarchy of different forms of being, for instance God having the supreme reality and what is created being less then God, not only being "less" but also "being" in a lesser way. Other more recent views doubt the reality of God (reduce him to an idea, or even an illusion) but state the objective reality of a substance called matter, whose properties can be perceived by our senses and known though our mind (which is itself one of the many manifestations of that substance). In any case one prefers the firm rock of being above the ever-changing theatre of the senses or even the ideas. Besides also Plato's story about the cave-dwellers is an expression of that nostalgia (for Plato it's the unchanging fundamental Ideas that are the most real, much more real than the world of the senses). So here we are, the Man of Kant: forever chained to his "grid" of difforming preconceptions of all kinds, the scientific ones in particular. Seeking, striving, reaching.. and thus creating culture and metaphysics. But not only unable to proove that the world is real but even unable to see it as it is, because he is "caught in his mind", entangled in his own perceptions and/or ideas. Yet "feeling" there is more, "feeling" that being is fulfillment, that it is man's ultimate goal. Being... immortal, unchangable, possessing infinite and immutable knowledge of reality by direct contact... that's being (a) God! Now there are the profound myths of mankind, Prometheus, Icarus... about those who fly to high, into the heavens, into the realm of the Gods, and who are punished for their boldness, for their "hybris". How are they punished? All aspirations for Being God (and Godly Being) punish themselves; all end with suffering, the reminder of our human condition, of our limitations, of our smallness and incompleteness (madness is suffering inflicted to a great mind). And then, when the patient is restored, when the Gods have forgiven him, he discovers the horizontal instead of the vertical, he discovers his own world and that of his fellow men. He (re)discovers love and ethics and responsibility (damn, this planet is warming up!). And then he abandones his absurd inclinations to fly and to "see", and what he now sees is the utility of science for computers and medicine and the dangers of metaphysics (Hume: "Commit it to the flames!"). And suddenly there is reality again, and its messages, in poetry, in a kiss or a hug. Nostalgia still, but with a clearer view. Eris and Aneris not longer being a problem either, because they are just part of a respecful conversation. Or part of the best humour on the Net, and good reading too. Thanks for that, Nat. See you around .

Thanks a lot for your approval, Triss! Can I add a few things? Yes I can, and I will . First I want to say that in my opinion philosophy is not at all "an arcane art", as you put it. It often seems so, because what is called "academic" philosophy has its own terminology and its own themes, like phenomenology, epistemelogy, ontology and so on. But it all has grown from the same impulse or source, that is intensely present in children for example (ask them what is God and they'll always have an answer). How would I describe that mental state? Lot's of wonder, lots of curiosity, an open and unprejudiced mind, and especially the urge to articulate ones thoughts and questions (every parent knows the "why-phase" in their kids' development: "Mom, why is the sky blue?", "Mom, where do we go when we are dead?" Etc. etc.). Now curiosity may have killed the cat, but kids kill their own curiosity when they grow up, or rather education kills it for them, and socialisation, and adaptation, and social conformity. Yes, it takes courage to "think" as an adult, and especially to "think for yourself", to think in a personal way, in your own style and about your own themes, all determined by your own identity and choice. And gradually -for example when you have your M.A.- you are taken seriously and somebody may even listen, and listen critically and respond creatively, and philosophize with you (thanks to you too, Nat ). Ok, this being said, I will NOT continue about the fascinating relation between Being and God, and I will NOT talk about my personal interpretation of Ishtar; I will not do that now anyway. But I would like to open a new thread, that hopefully will gather some response. It continues on the Essential Themes, the Eternal Riddles, the Major Questions, which are... hey, why don't you go there and look for yourself? And say your say? There are no wrong answers in philosophy.

Just adding a word to this. Perhaps some will have noticed that I dilute "academic philosophy" a bit, interpreting it (rather) freely and often using its conceptual apparatus for a more personal project. That is very legitimate as long as you use the terms correctly and be consistent in your own thoughts or "simplifications". In fact philosophical terms can rarely be used "correctly" and there is no such thing as philosophical "simplification". One simply can never escape interpretation in any form or phase of philosophical thinking (or talking about it).  Some philosophies are incredibly difficult while still "in the book" and may remind one of the most arcane expressions of quantum-physics or multi-dimensional geometry (take some pages of Hegel or Heidegger for instance, or the Pre-Socratics, or the Taoists...). But nothing forbids us to use the word "gravity" in a simpler or more personal conversation, without using the language of mathematics and with a different purpose (Borges spoke about the "gravity of books", and he did not mean "seriousness"). This is even more so with the Really Difficult words such as God, Truth, Love etc. Just give them a chance and dare to use and explore them and the difficulty will be in them, not in you. Besides "academic philosophy" may be a an unlucky expression, almost like "universitary poetry" or "learned nursery rhymes". Triss, philosophy is the "geek-science" par excellence, you just have to give it a chance and some time. Don't underestimate yourself: ask yourself "what is God?" and give yourself 15 minutes (and write down what comes up in you; no computers allowed of course). You'll be surprised with what you come up with. And you definitely will surprise me, and maybe the world. Just try...

A quarter of an hour is indeed an awfully long time to devote to such a question ! Hey, do you realize I'm not even a philosopher? I just can't get there. Just talking complete bull you know, to attract attention... Why did nobody notice that right away?

Nope, librarians are not supposed to read books on the job, except for the title page(s) in order to make catalographic records. This is really the torture of Tantalus, but I'm so "lucky" to be obliged to work part-time for health-reasons.  But, as you also said, I don't want to make... (etc. )