Dorothy Deasy asks the question if an electronically or pharmacologically induced sense of euphoria the same as spirituality? …And proceeds to define spirituality as:
Spirituality is “incorporating insight from peak experiences into our everyday lives”
“On-going, allowing access to that part of us that ismore fundamental than the I”
“That which creates the We”
“It is a call to action and interaction”
“Is the growing realization that we are connected to all of humanity, and that to do harm to others is to do harm to ourselves”
She said that we are “softwired” to want to belong and become social beings.
The greatest spiritual problem that I’ve noticed logically and phenomenological is that there is no definition. I’ve written about this extensively, and plan to make stronger ties in my next publication. While spirituality is acknowledged as non-physical entities interacting in our physical world/lives, when synthesizing its manifestations we often make illogical linkages like that of connectivity and empathy and even physical transactions.
Spirituality is not synonymous with empathy and cannot be “born-out by science” It’s lack of definition is it’s greatest strength as well as what cripples it as rational thought transforms a growingly secular society. The philosophies mentioned in the video/article by Dorothy are those of humanist egalitarianism, and although the ring wholesome and are desirable to those of use looking for connections of sorts (with humans and other physical beings, with and without sentience), they are far from achievable without a transhuman (or technological) solution to liberate human-kind from its cognitively astute, yet unavoidable, animal-istic reaction to scarcities of sorts. In my last book I write about this inability to achieve harmonies in an essay titled “competition is primitive”.
I’m of the group that thinks it clear that ancient theologies and ideologies won’t suffice in the existing world of realized exponential growth —> I don’t think it possible to use a humanistic ethic to critique transhuman (or human-plus) self-actualizations. Having stated that, this is not an effort to suppress the exploration of spirituality in it’s entirety, as it would be dangerous to suppress any engagement; further, spirituality needs to be defined by its users and “scientists” before philosophical exploration in order to provide a rather scientific methodology of tracking and creating information technologies (bodies of knowledge) from the on-going explorations. Considering the Physics here: If we’d like to use spirituality as our core rhetoric of human connection, then it cannot also be a representative of some non-physical manifestation—>visa versa.