Messages

dont tell them WHAT to think
but
demonstrate HOW to think

At this particularly juncture, I am only going to further your point by contributing nothing at all of value to this post.

But I do salute you for it nonetheless. I like it!

A cookie is still a cookie, even in a pie pan. Try again.

And at that point, it's a fucking huge cookie.

Which means extra plus cookie goodness!

(btw what the fuck's up with those boots?)

I've always wondered that. Pink dress + combat boots? I'm guessing that they tried to model her a bit sexier but the PS was like "OMG 2 MANY POLYGONS!"

Hey now, dress + boots can be very hot. Those bizarre shoulder pads on the other hand... I have no comment, only quizzical facial expression.

Could you really cover something like Fred Phelps protesting Jerry Falwell's funeral with a straight face?

Would you WANT to?

Correct faces for discussing Phelps: contorted in rage and/or laughter.

DC:  masturbation = feels good, but achieves little in concrete terms.  Hence its "badness."  However, it will not make you go blind.

But what about my palms? Will they get hairy? 

Of course "everything" is an electrochemical state.  That's the nature of the beast.  I was pointing out that these feelings of "being in touch with the divine" was nothing more than mental masturbation.  Sure, it alters behavior, but only in the same way that masturbation does.  Once you stop jacking off, what have you learned other than it felt pretty good?

First off, it seems that by this thinking, since you can reduce every single action and thought to an electrochemical state, doesn't that lead you to the conclusion that everything you do, think, and experience is masturbation?  And if so, doesn't that pretty much reduce your entire existence to a meaningless, inconsequential pool of DNA in the cosmic tubesock?  That's a pretty bleak view of the universe, if you ask me.

Secondly, the nature of the so-called "spiritual" experience isn't that you do it to yourself, it's that it is happening from the outside in.  Yes, this is not factually true, but it is what is often percieved.   So, it doesn't feel like masturbation, it's more like a handjob.

Thirdly, many people have made signifigant changes to their lives after such experiences: they've been friendlier, or more compassionate, or fanatical, or close-minded.  It has a much greater social impact than masturbation, even if, biologically, the two are similar.

"Spirtuality" is masturbation.  Religion is prostitution.  Superstition is pretty much like being raped (frequently in the line of religion/prostitution).

I'm not really following the analogy.

On your "first off," I was thinking something sort of along those lines. It gets awfully nihilistic if you start discounting anything that is just "feeling good." And then eventually someone will come running and smack you upside the head with a bar stool. Oh, wait, that felt BAD. All of a sudden feeling good doesn't seem quite so terrible anymore... But that's just how I see it.

DC:  masturbation = feels good, but achieves little in concrete terms.

I don't know if this still fits the analogy/allegory/whatever, but I'd like to point out just how many people like to have it both ways.  Oooh, their lives are better 'cause they get to fuck once in a while instead of "just" masturbating, but look closer and you'll see they've carefully structured the fucking so that it too achieves little in concrete terms.

I think it still fits, and it's a good point. I know I want to go somewhere with it, but I don't know where yet.

Our metaphorical masturbation or fucking can both be pretty pointless/worthless. Or, as LMNO pointed out, they can have a positive impact on a person, changing them for the better. Even if the output of something is just making you feel good, sometimes that's what it takes. Maybe it's not SIGNIFICANT and PRODUCTIVE in really Big^TM and Important^TM kinds of ways, but it sure as hell contributes. Let's not knock meaningless electrochemical reactions if in the end it still accomplishes something, even if that something is just serving as a catalyst for another reaction.

I know I had a point in here when I started, but... I lost it.

Propaganda spread by Mothers Against Discordianism... Think of the videogame propaganda "violent videogames make kids violent," etc, plus the whole freaking out about information on the scary intertubes... Children are illegally downloading the PD! Now they are trying to imitate it and use pineal glands and ZOMG WOULD SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

It was funnier when I was still in the shower. 

Brain studies have figured out that those "divine" emotions are just electrochemical brain states.  Nothing special about them, other than they feel good/wierd/whatever.  I expect that there is an endorphin release involved, the body's best positive reinforcement tool.  It is exactly like mental masturbation.

Ok, sure.  But when you go there, you end up with, "everything is an electrochemical brain state".  Which is the neurociological equivalent of "we are all one."  It doesn't really mean anything in and of itself.

What is "special" about them is the potential they have to change behavior.  In this way, they are useful tools.

Of course "everything" is an electrochemical state.  That's the nature of the beast.  I was pointing out that these feelings of "being in touch with the divine" was nothing more than mental masturbation.  Sure, it alters behavior, but only in the same way that masturbation does.  Once you stop jacking off, what have you learned other than it felt pretty good?

So, we arrive once again at "spirituality" being an emotional/electrochemical state, while religion/superstition are stale, outdated techniques originally designed to achieve that state.

True, but with a caveat.  "Spirtuality" is masturbation.  Religion is prostitution.  Superstition is pretty much like being raped (frequently in the line of religion/prostitution).

I just want to know what's so damn frowny about masturbation, whether literal or figurative! 

LMNO--I like your idea about religion/superstition being techniques originally designed to achieve said state. I don't know if this is necessarily what you were after, but that angle, in my mind, gives credit to what religions were initially after. Religions didn't start out as the stagnant, narrow things they often end up associated with. Christianity had to become big for some reason, for example.

Ben Franklin mentioned a religion he really liked--they didn't write down any of their philosophy/rules, because they figured that if they wrote it down, further down the line, people would take it as unchangeable; they wanted it to remain constantly changing. Too bad those guys didn't last; I can respect that.

So, superstition is a habit, while spirituality is closer to an emotion?

I agree with Felix; this is a good distinction.

I tend toward the trite sometimes, so I might fall into that here. My general stance, though, is that spirituality tends to be more personal/independent. Superstition is something provided by external stimuli. Spirituality is something arrived at through the individual, and therefore should theoretically be more adaptable, if you will (which is why I like comparing it to an emotion--it isn't fixed/concrete). Superstition is something fed in by outside sources accepted at face value without personalization, which makes it far more concrete and habit-like. I also tend to separate spirituality from religion (an experience can be spiritual without having to have anything to do with religion, although I might raise my eyebrows at someone who described it as such). Superstition tends to be more tied in to religion or other group mentality institutions.

I dislike the term "spirituality," though, because of over-use of it by neo-pagan-wiccan-thingies who want me to open myself to my inner eye and fondle crystals, etc.

P.S. - Hi. I am newbsauce. Long lurker, new poster. Eviscerate at will, etc.

Interesting point, but it doesn't explain supersitions like a "lucky bowling shirt", or some other personal posession that takes on supernatural significance, but only to the individual.

Well crap. Nice job knocking the bottom out of my theory! 

Your point is very valid. I have no answer, but I'll definitely think on it. My first inclination, in not wanting to immediately contradict myself, is to say that something like that could in theory be qualified as spirituality because it isn't the group mentality sort of thing; it's individual. I mean, I think it's sort of dumb, but I don't necessarily think all spirituality is non-dumb, either. On the other hand, that is so flagrantly a superstition-category situation. I don't know.

Hmm. I am going to reconsider this. Good call.

So, superstition is a habit, while spirituality is closer to an emotion?

I agree with Felix; this is a good distinction.

I tend toward the trite sometimes, so I might fall into that here. My general stance, though, is that spirituality tends to be more personal/independent. Superstition is something provided by external stimuli. Spirituality is something arrived at through the individual, and therefore should theoretically be more adaptable, if you will (which is why I like comparing it to an emotion--it isn't fixed/concrete). Superstition is something fed in by outside sources accepted at face value without personalization, which makes it far more concrete and habit-like. I also tend to separate spirituality from religion (an experience can be spiritual without having to have anything to do with religion, although I might raise my eyebrows at someone who described it as such). Superstition tends to be more tied in to religion or other group mentality institutions.

I dislike the term "spirituality," though, because of over-use of it by neo-pagan-wiccan-thingies who want me to open myself to my inner eye and fondle crystals, etc.

P.S. - Hi. I am newbsauce. Long lurker, new poster. Eviscerate at will, etc.