are you familiar with the concept(s) of "other" and "othering" as found in anthropology?

They are used to define non-ordinary, it plays a key role in the concept of sanctity.

It pertains largely to intention, basically one ritualizes thing by recognizing them as other in relation to normality or reality. For example, a church is "othered" space.

It is also the basis for forms of social exclusion and many other aspects of human behavior.
It plays an important role in religion and spirituality.

spir·it

noun
1.
the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character.

So combining them, spiritual means "of or relating to the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character...as opposed to material or physical things". Using these definitions, only a really hard core materialist who believes that "human emotions and character" are merely a nexus of electrical impulses would respond no to your poll.

But using what i understand most people consider "spiritual", I would have to respond no.

The problem with the poll is actually definition:

Wikepedia:

The term spirituality lacks a definitive definition...
There is no single, widely-agreed definition of spirituality....
Social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for the sacred, for that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration, "a transcendent dimension within human experience...discovered in moments in which the individual questions the meaning of personal existence and attempts to place the self within a broader ontological context."

MERRIAM-WEBSTER:

spir·i·tu·al·i·ty noun \ˌspir-i-chə-ˈwa-lə-tē\
: the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters : the quality or state of being spiritual

OXFORD:
(of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.

COLLINS:
spirituality (ˌspɪrɪtʃuˈæləti )

1) spiritual character, quality, or nature
2) religious devotion or piety
3) ([often pl.]) the rights, jurisdiction, tithes, etc. belonging to the church or to an ecclesiastic
the fact or state of being incorporeal

My answer to this poll, and I am sure I am not alone, would be very different depending on which definition I adopted. I suspect, furthermore, that everyone has their own definition for spirituality, which, in the context of the wikipedia quote, may be just as valid as any dictionary definition we may find. And then the difficulty of conflating spirituality with religion... (which I assume you are doing, given that this poll comes on the coat tails of your religion thread.)

So my final answer? A resounding "Dunno...", unfortunately.

Cheers,

JBArk

Feel free to feel that way.

All of the definitions you shared have common aspects.

The idea that everyone has their own definition is an interesting belief, it kind of subverts the validity of language if people use common terms with individual definitions. It ends up rendering language ineffectual.

I note that you shared this apt definition as well:


Then this:


If it is fitting for a dictionary definition, labeling it a conflation is an opinion you are entitled to, but why don't you elaborate a bit more why you feel that way?

I note from some other threads you are an outspoken opponent of religion as a general concept, so it is not surprising you would feel as if religion is not spiritual or spirituality is not religious, but given that you have shared multiple definitions and that one of them actually defines spirituality as religious, then according to your own post that is an acceptable premise for some at least spirituality is religious.

That does not mean you have to agree, clearly you are employing your own definition here, why don't you share your definitions of religious and spiritual to help clarify your own position?


Have you ever noticed that some people who accuse religion as being a smug or holier than thou type concept themselves act that way towards religion? I find it an interesting trend.

Also Jbark, I take it you feel that different personal definitions would subvert the validity of perspectives that DMT was spiritual, can you explain why that is?

Why can people not use their own interpretation of spiritual and have it be valid?

Is it your belief that all say, Buddhists, share the same definition of spiritual? Or that all Christians do? If you feel that most people have their own definition, wouldn't that apply to people who are members of a religion? Isn't that to say that in most any religion people have different and varied views about what spirituality is and how it is approached?

I am curious what your thoughts on that are.

Thanks!

PS, edited to add, is it still true that you essentially hold no beliefs about anything and basically believe nothing at all? I recall you stating this and think it puts your perspective into context. Do you consider yourself a nihilist?
If so, do you own a ferret?

I generally like your way of thinking AlbertKLloyd,even if I am in disagreement, though wow, did you ever just put a lot of words in my mouth and attribute opinions and ideas to me!

I have some people coming over, so I will have to answer point by point a little later. But suffice to say you could not be more wrong about me.

JBArk

Feel free to share your own definition, perspective and beliefs!

I find your perspectives very intriguing.

Hahaha
Ve are nihilists, Lebowski. Ve believe in nah-sing!

You have given me quite a lot to answer.

[quote=AlbertKLloyd] All of the definitions you shared have common aspects./quote]


False. Unless you can show me how these relate:

the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character.

&

the rights, jurisdiction, tithes, etc. belonging to the church or to an ecclesiastic

OR

the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters

&

the fact or state of being incorporeal

"The idea that everyone has their own definition is an interesting belief, it kind of subverts the validity of language if people use common terms with individual definitions. It ends up rendering language ineffectual. "

No, it only subverts the validity and renders ineffectual certain words like "spiritual", and polls based on these words. And i am basing this on wikepedia's asserting, twice, that there is no "widely agreed upon" or "definitive" definition of that word. The subsequent examples were, strangely, only examples to illustrate this point, and not reflections of any personal beliefs I may or may not have.


My using of the Merriam-Webster's definition and my asserting that you are conflating religion and spirituality is not inconsistent, given that I was pointing out with that definition and the others stated that there is no "definitive" definition of "spirituality". And i never asserted that you were alone in conflating religion and spirituality. But this all gets so difficult to explain in the absence of any widely accepted definition of "spiritual".

"I note from some other threads you are an outspoken opponent of religion as a general concept..."

No. And more vehemently, no.

I don't know how you formulated that opinion of me (feel free to quote me from those other threads), but, ironically, I fully agreed with your support of religion in your other thread. Religion is a beautiful and profound cultural force, that has unfortunately so often been subverted and used for political means that to to even state so rings of a cliche. I am fascinated by the various religions of this world and have made a habit of reading every one of the texts I can get my hands on (I must refrain from divulging when and where I read them, as some may find this disrespectful ). So no, again.

"...but given that you have shared multiple definitions and that one of them actually defines spirituality as religious, then according to your own post that is an acceptable premise for some at least spirituality is religious."

Of course it is. But, I reiterate, the lack of a "definitive" definition of spirituality makes the statement ultimately rather meaningless, though clearly valid to many.


"Have you ever noticed that some people who accuse religion as being a smug or holier than thou type concept themselves act that way towards religion? I find it an interesting trend."

I think I addressed this dig above, but to reiterate, I do not believe religion to be smug or holier than thou. Furthermore, asserting so is personifying religion, which is false, though rather humorous.

"Also Jbark, I take it you feel that different personal definitions would subvert the validity of perspectives that DMT was spiritual, can you explain why that is?"

Without a clear and "widely accepted" definition of what "spiritual" is, any assertion about spirituality or the spiritual nature of A or B or C is rather meaningless, no? I feel like I am repeating myself in every one of these statements. Maybe Through repetition I will arrive at a clearer way of stating it that will be easier to understand.

"Why can people not use their own interpretation of spiritual and have it be valid?"

They can, though those interpretations will be subjective and only personally meaningful. Are you not striving to make an objective point?

"Is it your belief that all say, Buddhists, share the same definition of spiritual? Or that all Christians do? If you feel that most people have their own definition, wouldn't that apply to people who are members of a religion? Isn't that to say that in most any religion people have different and varied views about what spirituality is and how it is approached?"

Possibly, though I think that within a given tradition, ones that strive to define "spiritual" in a consistent way for that religion, there would be a far greater consensus. And if not, It just goes a lot further to prove my point.

"PS, edited to add, is it still true that you essentially hold no beliefs about anything and basically believe nothing at all? I recall you stating this and think it puts your perspective into context. Do you consider yourself a nihilist?
If so, do you own a ferret?"

Nihilism is a system of belief. I try not to believe in things, but still partake of joy and wonder and awe. Holding no beliefs is not the same as a belief in nothing, or belief in nothingness for that matter. I cannot have pets in my new apartment, but a ferret would not be my first choice if I could.

And Thank you for digging up those quotes, but when you say things like:

"I find your perspectives very intriguing. ",

it is so out of character that I can never tell if you are being disingenuous or if you are truly intrigued. Thank you if so, and thank you as well if not!

Cheers, and thanks for the lengthy responses!

JBArk

from post 22:

This is a definition of spirit in the context of such things as "school spirit" and "team spirit" and does not apply to the question or topic.


This pertains directly to the concept of other, it is set apart. Further it relates to a persons place in terms of ontology.

Religion is directly concerned with "other" and informs ontology, typically via cosmology.

Since this context is specific to a person, it cannot be applied to a molecule, for a molecule cannot have intention so far as we know, so we can dismiss this definition.

There are three distinct definitions here, only the first applies to the question of is DMT spiritual, which is to ask does it have a spiritual character, quality or nature. This is not in terms of team spirit.

In terms of spiritual,, I already included the definition:

1.
of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

This pertains to definition 1 as given above.

Compare this:

to this:



I think you nailed it with the latter quote.
Good job!


It can be to you, but for it to have meaning all someone has to do is feel that it is spiritual to them. You cannot invalidate the opinion and beliefs of others through your own inability to accept a definition.


No dude, it is a poll.
Objective point?
Not at all.



What is your point exactly?
That part is not clear to me.

Are you saying that the beliefs of people in a religion are invalid as spirituality because you do not accept a definition of it?

Or rather, in your own words, what is your point?

I do find your position intriguing.
I am trying to understand what it is you actually believe about the validity of peoples opinions, you seem to think, and correct me if I am wrong, that your inability to accept a definition of spiritual for yourself means that people cannot accept one for themselves and form an opinion about DMT being spiritual, or being able to be used with spiritual intent for example.

What is wrong with people forming their own conclusions using their own definitions?
If they do this with diversity in say, Christianity, (they do) it does not invalidate their beliefs opinions or perspectives, or their practices. Are you saying that their opinions here are illegitimate? Or do you recognize that people can employ their own definitions and find something spiritual to them?

I do not understand your point, are you saying that people have to agree on a definition or they are wrong about what is spiritual to them?

You all know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I think the same can be said about spirituality.

People who seek spiritual experience will most certainly find it in the DMT experience. People who do not
seek spiritual experience will most certainly NOT find it in the DMT experience.

I myself was already seeking spiritual experience & knowledge when I first smoalked DMT.
I was thus able to see connections between DMT experiences and spiritual experiences described in
teachings such as Buddhism, the Bible, South- and Central- American Shamanism & Greek philosophy.
I see alot of meaning in my visions, because of having studied these various spiritual lifeviews.
Furthermore I am, by nature, a philosopher. I endlessly wonder...why? How so?
It is in my nature to seek meaning in everything.


Someone who has not preloaded their mind with such spiritual notions & views would not see the connections between
these teachings and the DMT experience and thus they might render it "amusing, but meaningless imagery".
Also, like I said: I am hardwired to give everything meaning. Many other people are just not wired that way.
They see things and feel no need to give it meaning. Nihilists(If I'm using this word correctly).
Needless to say: These people are most unlikely to ever see any meaning in their DMT visions.

I totally agree.

well as i understand it psilocybin has been indicated as a spiritual molecule in john hopkins studies (saying it catalysed spiritually significant experiences in the majority of those dosed).

i don't see any reason DMT would be any different....
but as others said, it really boils down to semantics and definition.

I thought the amygdala was the seat of emotions....
I wish Sam Harris could respond to this

I voted "other" mainly because I don't use "spiritual" as a discriminating term, to suggest that something else isn't spiritual.

To me all of existence (and non-existence?) is spiritual in nature. For nothing can truly be separate and independent from something else, so if one thing can be spiritual in nature then everything must be spiritual in nature. If nothing is spiritual in nature and our existential condition right now is the result of purely random causality than WOW I am in awe of the spiritual profundity of it all!

I am not religious and I do not believe in a God or an individual immortal soul.
Yet I feel that I am a very spiritual person.

DMT has provided me with some of the most profound experiences of my life and has been a huge influence on my spirituality. It has made me question and re-think my assumptions about this molecule many times. After 3.5 years of at least monthly if not weekly DMT use I can no longer say anything definite about the experience.

I don't believe that is what this is referring to. This sounds more like a definition for what one might consider the "soul" than more superficial uses of the word "spirit".

I voted "no" because I feel like DMT itself isn't spiritual, it's just a crystal. The experience on the other hand may or may not be spiritual; I don't know what it depends on but certainly not solely intentions. But then almost every experience we have can be viewed spiritually. An object, a crystal or even a plant I find hard to call spiritual in my set of vocabulary, though I can see how other people might.

Interesting perspectives.

I like how some can divide spirituality and religion, I am unable to and would consider anything spiritual to be religious, but likewise I cannot consider all to be spiritual as that I consider spiritual to be non-physical and "other"

Of course there is no wrong or right opinion or response for this topic.

Thus far the most common answer relates a belief that intention is what makes something spiritual regardless of how we individually define spiritual.

in the end, these are nothing but words and ideas. I can say pretty clearly that, at least atm while the mushrooms are still working, the words dont matter.

Neurotransmitters and people eating them were likely here looongg before there was ideas of spirituality or religion.

There is a space you get to, when everything is calm and clear, and the heart opens. This is the space where words, concepts and ideas simply drip off the thing like water..those drips are not the thing itself.

I find it difficult to argue for any of the answers. Though I would likely go with "only if you intend it to be, or use it that way". I make it hard for myself though to define spirit, as I believe in no separation between the mind and body. If I take it to mean the non reducible ontological experience of consciousness, then yes I certainly think that there is innate spiritual action caused by this chemical being in my brain. I would say the same of a lot of chemicals. If I take it to mean along with sacred, something to do with God. I would have to define my notion of God. I define the term in the sense of an axiom, the limit of my understanding, a fundamental basis for my actions in the world. In this sense I would say that I relate to DMT with reverence and it has effected my fundamental assumptions, but so have some books, not so vibrantly. I know that others may relate to the words differently, but I just haven't had the experiences that would cause me to decide that I can have experience without my body, or that there is some grand game master that isn't just my limited assumptions.

I originally went with "only if you intend it to be, or use it that way", and I guess I'll stick with that as I'm sure that other people relate to world using ideas wholly alien to my mind.

I also don't think I'm a good candidate for the question as I am yet to have a psychedelic experience that pulls me completely out of this world.