Imagination vs. Scientific evidence

[entheogenetics]

Hey everyone, new member here and I thought instead of offering a theory from a limited perspective I would ask a question.

How much weight can you put into an experience that feels real. I am skeptical but at the same time I can acknowledge that a world where we dismiss everything as rubbish because it doesn't fit into a box that we have crafted, isn't the kind of culture I want to claim a part of. Our successful attempts in the westthat led us to the industrial revolution. Our obsession with materialism. Feels empty and without much magic. I am grateful of course for the computer and internet, but arent we a nation who for the most part is impoverished spiritually?

Do psychedelics and spirit go together? It sure feels like it. How can you not be blown away by a high dose of DMT and question your world thereafter?

Are psychedelics the perfect religion for a generation who wants tangible proof for everything?

 

[pitubo]

Feels empty and without much magic.

The magic is in how you live in your world. If "the world" holds you down in empty materialism, maybe you are under a spell of bad magic.

arent we a nation who for the most part is impoverished spiritually?

What nation are you talking about? The internet - and this forum as well - is a global phenomenon that transcends national and cultural borders.

More importantly, what do you mean with "spirituality"? Could you give a workable definition?

Are psychedelics the perfect religion for a generation who wants tangible proof for everything?

Phuleez no more religions, and especially not psychedelic religions! That IMHO is really a step backwards, even beyond impoverished materialism.

PS: welcome to the forum!

 

[entheogenetics]

I was pointing out that the quest for material objects in the west (USA) due to capitalism to me feels empty. As for my life I was lucky to have parents who saw that money was only as good as the freedom it bought you. A Quest for toys we don't need is an empty one I feel.

However I dislike people who give answers as absolutes so for me the quest for material objects and status symbols is empty.

Sorry The nation I'm describing is the USA. Although we could have it a lot worse. We could a lotworse. I am thinking of The East Tibet etc they lack the industrialism yet it seems a rich spiritual buddhist tradition feeds there souls and maybe a childlike wonder is more prevalent.

The question about our generation seeking psychedelics bc its a way to experience something bigger than yourself spiritually first hand and doesn't require much faith. I think its a beautiful thing and has helped guide me DMT esp. And improved my life.

Thank you for the welcome and pushing me to be more concise when posting on the board.

 

[pitubo]

Materialism is present, nay prevalent everywhere in the world. In the industrialized west there is just more matter available to the average person. Material objects are not limited to just toys, they also comprise of food, shelter and critical tools for survival. Even dmt is a material object and whether it is to be seen as a tool or a toy I will leave to the individual beholder.

To rattle the chain of buddhist carnality, here's some fun stories about Tibet, and its protagonist:
His material Highness
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

And a bit longer read (but nonetheless fascinating):
The shadow of the dalai lama: sexuality, magic and politics in tibetan buddhism

 

[jamie]

don't get so set in one view that you cant try out others. Science, religion, spirituality etc..don't focus on one to the point where you are not willing to even test out an other. It's a bit neurotic the way we hyper focus and cling in our daily lives.

 

[sleepermustawaken]

I would like to use pitubo's link about buddhism and paraphrase with DMT to show the revelance:

Standing in marked contrast to the intolerant savagery of other lifestyles, DMT is neither fanatical nor dogmatic--so say its adherents (the dmt-nexus). For many of them DMT is less a theology and more a meditative and investigative discipline intended to promote an inner harmony and enlightenment while directing us to a path of right living. One tries to put aside egoistic pursuits and gain a deeper understanding of one’s connection to all people and things.

I don't think you can claim any more weight on a breakthrough than you can on an experience of everyday life, both are incredibly bizarre... come one, you live as a multicellular carbon based biological robot that operates with this mysterious thing called consciousness under a false presumption of free will and thought dictation, how is that ANYMORE eccentric than meeting entities that presumably live in an alternate dimension? I think the trouble with realising this is that incessant repititivity (especially of monotonuous experiences like WORK or just understanding the world the way culture like tv/radio advertises) promotes everyone to understand their sense experiences in a particular way. So, by no intentional fault of culture (or perhaps by intention of the illumina... ssshhh) we become conditioned by repititivity and fall in to a passive, sterile and to some extent stupified state that psychedelics tend to AWAKE us from, oftentimes this is shocking when we awaken too! The sleeper must awaken!

What we need now is for our scientists to make some nano brain bots that don't enslave everyone into an orwellian nightmare but give everyone satori lol.

 

[○]

Kind of on a side tangent; kind of not. Our experience of perceiving the world/reality, is, 'in our head', 'in our imagination', etc. So when I here people say - "Well, is the DMT experience/psychedelic experience in our head?" ..I always laugh at that.

It's all 'in our head'. Sure there's a seemingly 'objective' reality in which we interact, but, it's tied in under the umbrella of our subjective experience. Every being on this plant perceives/sees reality differently; perceives a different slice, so who has the handle on what reality 'is'? So with that - the experience of taking a psychedelic, especially when you have an overwhelmingly intense breakthrough - whether it be psilocybin, DMT, LSD, etc - to ask 'is it all in our head', 'is it all in our imagination?' - they need to remember .. everything is ..ALL in our head.

You take a psychedelic - the model consensus model of reality changes. And to say to any degree 'how real' (what's real even mean?) that is or 'whats going on' or 'the meaning'. ....Who knows.

Sorry to kind of sidestep.

How can you not be blown away by a high dose of DMT and question your world thereafter?

I agree.

 

[sleepermustawaken]

Kind of on a side tangent; kind of not. Our experience of perceiving the world/reality, is, 'in our head', 'in our imagination', etc. So when I here people say - "Well, is the DMT experience/psychedelic experience in our head?" ..I always laugh at that. 'is it all in our head', 'is it all in our imagination?' - they need to remember .. everything is ..ALL in our head.

You take a psychedelic - the model consensus model of reality changes. And to say to any degree 'how real' (what's real even mean?) that is or 'whats going on' or 'the meaning'. ....Who knows.

Keep in mind that when you say "it is all in our head" you are assuming a materialistic belief system that physical matter creates consciousness and that therefor creates a subjective state. We do not know what subjectivity itself actually is and have no way of proving it exists, nor objectivity for that matter. Yet we still infer from our experiences we know what subjectivity and objectivity is because it is easier to choose a belief like this than constantly living in confusion but when we analyse the boundaries of our existence like we are doing here it is important to keep our so tacit beliefs in check.

I agree with the OP we shouldn't have so much faith in what belief systems scientists are choosing to run with, no matter how well they coerce with scientific discovery.

You are so true to say the consesus model dissapears and real becomes indefinite which reminds me of this thread from the FAQ What is "real", and when is it actually useful to ask this?

 

[○]

Keep in mind that when you say "it is all in our head" you are assuming a materialistic belief system that physical matter creates consciousness and that therefor creates a subjective state. We do not know what subjectivity itself actually is and have no way of proving it exists, nor objectivity for that matter. Yet we still infer from our experiences we know what subjectivity and objectivity is because it is easier to choose a belief like this than constantly living in confusion but when we analyse the boundaries of our existence like we are doing here it is important to keep our so tacit beliefs in check.

I agree with the OP we shouldn't have so much faith in what belief systems scientists are choosing to run with, no matter how well they coerce with scientific discovery.

Sorry I should've been more clear. I was just stating from that perspective for people that tend to look at it from a materialistic angle.

Personally, I don't follow the matter creates consciousness. Quite the opposite imo.

What's consciousness even? We don't even know what 'consciousness' is, nor specifically where it comes from.

I know that there's experience; there's appearances. Beyond that - your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

Hey everyone, new member here and I thought instead of offering a theory from a limited perspective I would ask a question.

How much weight can you put into an experience that feels real. I am skeptical but at the same time I can acknowledge that a world where we dismiss everything as rubbish because it doesn't fit into a box that we have crafted, isn't the kind of culture I want to claim a part of. Our successful attempts in the westthat led us to the industrial revolution. Our obsession with materialism. Feels empty and without much magic. I am grateful of course for the computer and internet, but arent we a nation who for the most part is impoverished spiritually?

Do psychedelics and spirit go together? It sure feels like it. How can you not be blown away by a high dose of DMT and question your world thereafter?

Are psychedelics the perfect religion for a generation who wants tangible proof for everything?

I disagree that materialism is 'empty' and 'without much magic.' That may be how you feel personally, but it's not inherent to the position.

I work as a scientist, possibly one of the most materialist professions in the modern world, and I consider myself a staunch materialist, but my work is full of magic and feeling. Seeing the patterns in world, and teasing them apart is one of the most magical experiences I can think of. Understanding how ionotropic GABA receptors inhibit neural activity by changing the ion concentration inside and outside a neuron was as magical an experience as any psychedelic fantasy. Figuring out a beautiful mechanism in organic chemistry leaves a similar feeling of awe.

You don't need to make up magic and spirits to feel touched by beauty, you just have to really look at what's in front of you.

That, for me, was one of the primary lessons psychedelics taught me. I was an artist before I started taking mushrooms, and now I'm a scientist, and I feel like now I'm seeing more beauty then I ever did working as a designer.

Blessings
~ND

 

[3rdI]

if the materialist paradigm is correct then the whole psychedelic experience is of material origin making materialism, IMO, very very very far from empty or without magic.

no matter the origin of the DMT/psychedelic experience it is what it is, and is no less or more special.

in fact scratch that, if the DMT experience is of spiritual origin i think it is less magical than us having something in our heads that can produce such epic beauty and awe, i am less impressed if it is created by god/spirits/alternate dimensions

 

[pitubo]

IMHO:

We know very very very little about consciousness. Psychology and psychiatry are still hardly credible as an objective science, seeing that they both lack fundamental empirical objectivity and reproducibility and instead dabble in highly subjective "diagnoses". Biochemical neurochemistry (hi ND!) may hold some claims to be scientific and empirical, but then again, a bunch of molecules and receptors to me hold as much relevance to "Consciousness", "Mind", "Self" or whatever seemingly intuitively clear concept as Santa's little helpers do.

We're stuck with the circumstance that most of the quintessential human experience is unquantifiable in reproducible objective terms.

Yet fundamentally, the scientific paradigm is really all we have to share our experiences. The aim for objectivity is paramount in interpersonal communications because it implies an intent for awareness of the personal subjectivity and unspoken assumptions that can hamper mutual understanding. If we forego verifiability, we might as well withdraw into some form of splendid "solipsitude". Or start practical work on achieving mind-melt (a tantalizing concept that many experienced psychonauts recognize) at will.

Until we can quantify "intent" and its intra- and intersubjective qualities, we'll have to make do with "fact" and its objective and material qualities. The scientific method is not an arbitrary set of rules adopted by a bunch of funny guys who happen to like Vogon poetry over Real Feelings(tm), it is a very fundamental approach of cognition and communication (ideally) taken to an extreme that would not be practical in everyday life. An everyday life that is actually very material most of the time.

In the mean time, still nobody will tell me what they really mean with "spiritual" or "spirituality". I actually made a stab at it on the forum myself some time ago, but it seems not to resonate with many "spiritual" people.

Few psychologists and psychiatrists appear to know that "psyche" originally meant "bodily breath", "life breath" or "sacred breath" in ancient Greek. Same with "Spiritus" in Latin btw. (there goes your spirituality..) Don't mix up "psyche" with "pneuma" (forced breathing) that is propagated in some exercises and techniques. It's not the same.

 

[Redguard]

IMHO:

We know very very very little about consciousness. Psychology and psychiatry are still hardly credible as an objective science, seeing that they both lack fundamental empirical objectivity and reproducibility and instead dabble in highly subjective "diagnoses". Biochemical neurochemistry (hi ND!) may hold some claims to be scientific and empirical, but then again, a bunch of molecules and receptors to me hold as much relevance to "Consciousness", "Mind", "Self" or whatever seemingly intuitively clear concept as Santa's little helpers do.

We're stuck with the circumstance that most of the quintessential human experience is unquantifiable in reproducible objective terms.

Yet fundamentally, the scientific paradigm is really all we have to share our experiences. The aim for objectivity is paramount in interpersonal communications because it implies an intent for awareness of the personal subjectivity and unspoken assumptions that can hamper mutual understanding. If we forego verifiability, we might as well withdraw into some form of splendid "solipsitude". Or start practical work on achieving mind-melt (a tantalizing concept that many experienced psychonauts recognize) at will.

Until we can quantify "intent" and its intra- and intersubjective qualities, we'll have to make do with "fact" and its objective and material qualities. The scientific method is not an arbitrary set of rules adopted by a bunch of funny guys who happen to like Vogon poetry over Real Feelings(tm), it is a very fundamental approach of cognition and communication (ideally) taken to an extreme that would not be practical in everyday life. An everyday life that is actually very material most of the time.

In the mean time, still nobody will tell me what they really mean with "spiritual" or "spirituality". I actually made a stab at it on the forum myself some time ago, but it seems not to resonate with many "spiritual" people.

Few psychologists and psychiatrists appear to know that "psyche" originally meant "bodily breath", "life breath" or "sacred breath" in ancient Greek. Same with "Spiritus" in Latin btw. (there goes your spirituality..) Don't mix up "psyche" with "pneuma" (forced breathing) that is propagated in some exercises and techniques. It's not the same.

Pitubo... or should I call you PITBULL? That's your style on these forums, always going for people's jugulars'. I like it . But given who you are I hope you don't mind if I throw a few curve balls of my own, you are more then welcome to throw a few at me.

I liked the first half of your post btw. My only comment in regards to that is that is to point out that there are some things that you can't verify in science that we know exists due to our experience of them, like dreams. In many ways "spirituality" or the "occult" is like this. That being said, it's incredibly important to consider all possibilities of what we actually experience, Crowley said it best.

“In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.”
― Aleister Crowley

Here's where I have issue with you. You really need to get a dictionary sometime, and not just any dictionary, an etymological dictionary that actually traces a word back to it's root (or atleast as far back as we can go) I practically use mine all the time. If you notice in bold I highlighted your attempt to be a smart ass. When you can't even get the word psyche correct which is basic philosophy 101 you come off as being the opposite of a smart ass.

psyche (n.) "animating spirit," from Latin psyche, from Greek psykhe "the soul, mind, spirit; breath; life, one's life, the invisible animating principle or entity which occupies and directs the physical body; understanding" (personified as Psykhe, the beloved of Eros), akin to psykhein "to blow, cool," from PIE root *bhes- "to blow, to breathe" (source also of Sanskrit bhas-), "Probably imitative" [Watkins].

Also in ancient Greek, "departed soul, spirit, ghost," and often represented symbolically as a butterfly or moth. The word had extensive sense development in Platonic philosophy and Jewish-influenced theological writing of St. Paul (compare spirit (n.)). Meaning "human soul" is from 1650s. In English, psychological sense "mind," is attested by 1910.

In another thread we had a conversation about the meaning of the word ayahuasca. You seemed to believe that 30 some odd years of being in the western word was long enough to change the meaning of the word. People have being using spiritual to describe their outlook on life for around 700 years now and that's not good enough for you. I think you need to apply your analytical mind on yourself once in a while.

 

[Jees]

Hey everyone, new member here and I thought instead of offering a theory from a limited perspective I would ask a question.

How much weight can you put into an experience that feels real. I am skeptical but at the same time I can acknowledge that a world where we dismiss everything as rubbish because it doesn't fit into a box that we have crafted, isn't the kind of culture I want to claim a part of. Our successful attempts in the westthat led us to the industrial revolution. Our obsession with materialism. Feels empty and without much magic. I am grateful of course for the computer and internet, but arent we a nation who for the most part is impoverished spiritually?

Do psychedelics and spirit go together? It sure feels like it. How can you not be blown away by a high dose of DMT and question your world thereafter?

Are psychedelics the perfect religion for a generation who wants tangible proof for everything?

I think you'll like this thread:
A Guide to Skeptical Tripping

 

[Alloklais]

That, for me, was one of the primary lessons psychedelics taught me. I was an artist before I started taking mushrooms, and now I'm a scientist, and I feel like now I'm seeing more beauty then I ever did working as a designer.

:d

I love what ND said, and feels much like my own experience. I highly recommend this book,
The Power of Limits: Proportional Harmonies in Nature, Art, and Architecture by Gyorgy Doczi, which touches on this Mystery, how the natural world seems to emerge, pattern and organize itself. I'm not looking for any answers, regardless, whether or not there is a designer, be it nature or algorithms or gnomes. But I stand in awe at the beauty of the world and cosmos, and all its emergent phenomena.

Consciously engaging this mind-set of awe, to me this feels spiritually meaningful. And then to be an active participant in this creative endeavor.

Last night I had this conversation with my six year old son, who asked what's the smallest thing in the world? To paraphrase: what's wood made from, what's carbon made from, and then carbon molecules? and atoms? and lastly, then, what are quarks made out of? T'was turtles the whole way down. He got it.

Pirsig and his Metaphysics of Quality weaves in there too. Psychedelics can and do wake us up from slumber, from the static qualities of patterns that give rise to Form, and then we are opened to the Dynamic qualities that disrupt and usher in change, innovation and novelty. That doesn't need religion. It seems to me as soon as one frames up his beliefs in a static box, one becomes stuck. But operating purely in the Dynamic, one becomes lost in the boundless and in chaos. So limits too are necessary. It's the discreet and evolving liminal space between the two where the magic happens.

 

[ganesh]

How much weight can you put into an experience that feels real. I am skeptical but at the same time I can acknowledge that a world where we dismiss everything as rubbish because it doesn't fit into a box that we have crafted

Hi there!

I think a lot of people understand how you feel. However i think the most important point here is if an experience is VALID for you. For example, we know that we dream, and we accept these experiences, although we cannot prove the content of our dreams to other, scientifically or not, but does that make them in-valid?

Your thoughts, experiences, etc, are yours. You have yours, i have mine. Regarding materialism; We need materialism to live a basic life upon which we can experience ALL that life has to offer, this materialism is part of the stage that is life, which we express ourselves upon. The important thing to understand is that our expression deserves attention, not materialism. Ie, keep in balance where materialism helps your expression, not diminishes it.

Regarding science validation stuff, why view your own experiences as in-valid, simply because science is backwards in the measurement of non material phenomena? Doesn't THAT itself raise questions? Indeed, why haven't humans cracked that one? We think of science as being so intelligent and stuff, but is it really? I think the last thing a scientist wants is someone reminding them of that, and thus the so called spriritual experience is simply brushed off as 'psychosis'.


OOO...the 'if it can't be measured, its not valid', crowd! I know a few of them, it's all about fear of insults to their control freaked ego mindsets. I often wonder if they have forgotton about the miracle of life ?

 

[pitubo]

Pitubo... or should I call you PITBULL?

Whoaah! Atta boy!

That's your style on these forums, always going for people's jugulars'. I like it . But given who you are I hope you don't mind if I throw a few curve balls of my own, you are more then welcome to throw a few at me.

I don't mind the balls thrown at me, I come to the forum to play, not to be admired.

It's not entirely fair to call me out as a pitbull. For one, I go at the issue, not the person. I'll bite the stick, not the hand that holds it. When I engage, it is with tail wagging firmly up in the air and with eyes and ears open. And I don't really bite, I just bark, unlike those cute chihuahua's who from out of nowhere spring into a biting frenzy.

I liked the first half of your post btw. My only comment in regards to that is that is to point out that there are some things that you can't verify in science that we know exists due to our experience of them, like dreams.

Empirical science doesn't attempt to describe all of the reality experienced by humans, especially the parts that are unreproducible. That doesn't make science "wrong" though, just limited. Nevertheless, subjective and unreproducible experiences are not on the same level of truth as scientifically established facts are.

In many ways "spirituality" or the "occult" is like this. That being said, it's incredibly important to consider all possibilities of what we actually experience, Crowley said it best.

“In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.”
― Aleister Crowley

So Crowley can freely claim that "by doing certain things certain results will follow", but we are not to attribute objective reality to it? Then what is he saying? IMHO he is just screwing with our heads here, and in plain view too, if you have the eyes to see it. I suspect that his admonitions against critical evaluation of his statements is mostly aimed at preventing the reader from seeing Crowley's "earnesty".

Here's where I have issue with you. You really need to get a dictionary sometime, and not just any dictionary, an etymological dictionary that actually traces a word back to it's root (or atleast as far back as we can go) I practically use mine all the time. If you notice in bold I highlighted your attempt to be a smart ass. When you can't even get the word psyche correct which is basic philosophy 101 you come off as being the opposite of a smart ass.

psyche (n.) "animating spirit," from Latin psyche, from Greek psykhe "the soul, mind, spirit; breath; life, one's life, the invisible animating principle or entity which occupies and directs the physical body; understanding" (personified as Psykhe, the beloved of Eros), akin to psykhein "to blow, cool," from PIE root *bhes- "to blow, to breathe" (source also of Sanskrit bhas-), "Probably imitative" [Watkins].

Also in ancient Greek, "departed soul, spirit, ghost," and often represented symbolically as a butterfly or moth. The word had extensive sense development in Platonic philosophy and Jewish-influenced theological writing of St. Paul (compare spirit (n.)). Meaning "human soul" is from 1650s. In English, psychological sense "mind," is attested by 1910.

Actually I did investigate these things a little further than jumping on the first google hit before making bold claims here. Had you bothered to also read in "your" etymological dictionary at etymonline.com the entry for "spirit" you would have found that it essentially confirms what I have been saying:

spirit (n.) mid-13c., "animating or vital principle in man and animals," from Anglo-French spirit, Old French espirit "spirit, soul" (12c., Modern French esprit) and directly from Latin spiritus "a breathing (respiration, and of the wind), breath; breath of a god," hence "inspiration; breath of life," hence "life;" also "disposition, character; high spirit, vigor, courage; pride, arrogance," related to spirare "to breathe," from PIE *(s)peis- "to blow" (cognates: Old Church Slavonic pisto "to play on the flute" ).

There are interesting parallels running from chi, ki, prana, psyche and spiritus. As much as I will say that there is as of yet little empirical scientific fact to the matter, I will also say that I believe that here actually is a fertile venue for investigating a vast realm of uncharted mystery.

But that take on spirituality would make it quite tangible, instead of providing a convenient hideout for the lack of will to be responsible for the factual substance of one's words.

In another thread we had a conversation about the meaning of the word ayahuasca. You seemed to believe that 30 some odd years of being in the western word was long enough to change the meaning of the word.

Notice that in that thread I was not at all denying the roots of the word ayahuasca and the original practice in the Amazon basin. In fact I explicitly affirmed it. All I did was to observe that indeed in thirty years time the word has acquired new meanings.

People have being using spiritual to describe their outlook on life for around 700 years now and that's not good enough for you.

I don't believe "spirituality" in the sense used today and particularly on this forum would ring a bell with people 700 years ago, really. Here's what etymonline.com has to say:

spirituality (n.) early 15c., "the clergy," also "ecclesiastical property; things pertaining to the Church," from Middle French spiritualite, from Late Latin spiritualitatem (nominative spiritualitas), from Latin spiritualis (see spiritual). Meaning "quality of being spiritual" is from c. 1500; seldom-used sense of "fact or condition of being a spirit" is from 1680s. An earlier form was spiritualty (late 14c.).

spiritual (adj.) c. 1300, "of or concerning the spirit" (especially in religious aspects), from Old French spirituel, esperituel (12c.) or directly from a Medieval Latin ecclesiastical use of Latin spiritualis "of or pertaining to breath, breathing, wind, or air; pertaining to spirit," from spiritus "of breathing, of the spirit" (see spirit (n.)). Meaning "of or concerning the church" is attested from mid-14c. Related: Spiritually. An Old English word for "spiritual" was godcundlic.

spiritualist (n.) 1852, "one who believes in the ability of the living to communicate with the dead via a medium," from spiritual + -ist (also see spirit (n.)). Earlier (1640s) "one with regard for spiritual things." Related Spiritualistic.

Every two or three years the Americans have a paroxysm of humbug -- ... at the present time it is Spiritual-ism. [J.Dix, "Transatlantic Tracings," 1853]

I don't believe any of these lemmas pertain to the contemporary use of "spirituality", except maybe the last (but then not everyone involved might like that one).

So my request for anyone with a genuine interest in "spirituality" to provide me with a workable definition still stands.

Until then I will personally lump "spirituality" with the the pile of what I consider hoaxers like the aforementioned Crowley, Blavatsky and many, many others. You may not like me as a person because of my opinion or you can point out facts that may cause me to alter my opinion. You can even do both if you like. But as long as I hold this opinion, I may occasionally bark when hearing the word "spirituality".

I think you need to apply your analytical mind on yourself once in a while.

I appreciate all the help I can get. :d

 

[Cognitive Heart]

Imagination is infinitely unlimited. Science is essential. This is not to say science isn't infinite in its very nature, either. To learn or perceive all known sciences is infinite to our perception. It is a mega info library. Just as our imagination can flight our perception; without which, science could not exist to us perceptually. Life needs science. Imagination fuels this with ideas, theories, validations, facts, fictions, problems, disasters, discoveries, potentials, and so on and so forth.

What I mean is that these two aspects of life are united, not separate. One needs the other to thrive and continue forward.

 

[ganesh]

Imagination is a human skill, that probably led to the development of Science.

 

[Redguard]

Finally I find someone I can speak my mind to around here that won't be offended. Those Chihuahuas are vicious I'd watch out for their sharp teeth. Although I think a cat would be a more apropos for this situation . I hate separating conversations in quotes I hope you don't mind.

So we agree that science is limited yes? In the same way that science is limited in telling us about our dreams, it is also limited in explaining spirits and the occult. That's the point I'm trying to make. So we will never be able to "measure" a ghost. After my mother passed away from a terrible death my house was alive. I would have never told you ghosts were real. Armed with these experiences I asked around. These experiences are far more common then one would initially believe. That's because these individuals fear talking about their experiences because generally they are treated like they are crazy when they talk about them. This is something that's very wrong about our culture, when people's beliefs are criticized to the point where they don't even want to talk about them. I'm not accusing you of going that far but it gets very tiring having to constantly defend them.

Anyone who has a modicum of experience in the occult will tell you that our beliefs have a massive impact in how we experience the occult. Not having beliefs gives us a more pure experience. If one approaches the demonic expecting to see a hell spawn then that's what you generally will find. When I look at the world I see a thousand shades of grey. Nothing is so black and white anymore. And Crowley's quote I assume touches on this. His rituals and experiments may seem like one giant hoax to you but unless you actually successfully completed one of them then there's no way you can be 100% assured they are bs or not.

As per my online dictionary copy and paste the whole point of that was to show you that words have multiple meanings (especially this word). I highlighted the part that very much so goes against your limited definition of it.

Also in ancient Greek, "departed soul, spirit, ghost," and often represented symbolically as a butterfly or moth. The word had extensive sense development in Platonic philosophy and Jewish-influenced theological writing of St. Paul (compare spirit (n.)). Meaning "human soul" is from 1650s. In English, psychological sense "mind," is attested by 1910.
Plato's tripartite theory of the soul also greatly expands on your limited definition. You know Plato was a well known ancient Greek philosopher right . In fact some even call him the father of philosophy.

Energy manipulation of chi/ki/prana is step one and the least interesting part of it but I'm happy that you at least acknowledge it. But I didn't get into the occult to play around with energy in my body, I got into it to experience the "impossible". Whether your etymology definition of the word spiritualist holds true with many people on this forum doesn't take away from the validity of the definition. This isn't necessarily a forum where you will find many traditional spiritualists. That being said, a lot of people think spirituality is just one big giant group hug where you dance around and take a lot of drugs and sing kumbaya. Nothing could be further from the truth. A more modern definition of the word that you just might agree with, perhaps spirituality is just human's attempt to understand the intangible incommensurable parts of the human psyche science can't identify yet.