I'm going to have to agree with Ibeing, here: As ridiculous as some of these superstitious concepts can be, and though they may not hold any literal scientific credence, nor does science have or can even hope to have a comprehensive rational explanation of the human experience. Both, the scientific and superstitious viewpoints on the matter of spirit, regard it as in the manner of a purely supernatural concept and take it for granted.
The more science advances, the more boundless its frontiers appear, but it would be a complete cop-out to forgo hard road of research and discovery (a pursuit not born of the scientific tradition, but universal to every life in some degree) and opt for a more mystical explanation. At the same time, it's important for the scientific community to express humility in the limitations of their interpretations (which, more often than not, they do, though sometimes with great struggle). Science works well for what it is but should never attempt to replace tradition or religion as its successor, or it will succumb to similar follies--better the two be done away with than simply updated.
Mysticism has significance as an aesthetic interpretation of the personal experience, and the personal experience often-times proves remarkably insightful, resulting in scientifically applicable theories. Mysticism itself can often become the forerunner of proven scientific theory, but typically serves better as a signifier of common qualities of the human psyche; though the psyche, itself, has as much to do with the natural world as anything else.
From the individual standpoint, the natural world is all we have, and though we tend to settle on mystical interpretations of the unknown, based on our limited experiences, scientific reasoning has allowed us to recognize a trend in phenomena being of natural origin, allowing them to remain as open-ended curiosities for further study. It takes a more philosophical approach, however, to be able to distill a more comprehensive sense (a sense for the individual, rather than a literal explanation others) of the world out of both the hard empiricism of science and the abstract speculation of mysticism.
'Spirit' certainly signifies something common to the human experience, but perhaps it's something natural. Rather than being at odds with or somehow stratified above the body, perhaps it is something born of the body or of life or experience, in general.
One world at a time.
The more science advances, the more boundless its frontiers appear, but it would be a complete cop-out to forgo hard road of research and discovery (a pursuit not born of the scientific tradition, but universal to every life in some degree) and opt for a more mystical explanation. At the same time, it's important for the scientific community to express humility in the limitations of their interpretations (which, more often than not, they do, though sometimes with great struggle). Science works well for what it is but should never attempt to replace tradition or religion as its successor, or it will succumb to similar follies--better the two be done away with than simply updated.
Mysticism has significance as an aesthetic interpretation of the personal experience, and the personal experience often-times proves remarkably insightful, resulting in scientifically applicable theories. Mysticism itself can often become the forerunner of proven scientific theory, but typically serves better as a signifier of common qualities of the human psyche; though the psyche, itself, has as much to do with the natural world as anything else.
From the individual standpoint, the natural world is all we have, and though we tend to settle on mystical interpretations of the unknown, based on our limited experiences, scientific reasoning has allowed us to recognize a trend in phenomena being of natural origin, allowing them to remain as open-ended curiosities for further study. It takes a more philosophical approach, however, to be able to distill a more comprehensive sense (a sense for the individual, rather than a literal explanation others) of the world out of both the hard empiricism of science and the abstract speculation of mysticism.
'Spirit' certainly signifies something common to the human experience, but perhaps it's something natural. Rather than being at odds with or somehow stratified above the body, perhaps it is something born of the body or of life or experience, in general.
One world at a time.
to show what I mean. No offense intended Mr_dmt but I am going to be harsh.