I thought creating a topic here would be more appropriate to share more in depth about my Spiritual belief.
So, my spiritual beliefs go along those lines.
There is something greater, beyond human experience that elucidate our capability to comprehend. I dont think it is necessary to know exactly why we experience humanity, I do even think this "why we live?" is a question we are given to answer ourselves, and that this "freedom" of purpose is probably part of this "greater" purpose.
Ironically, I don't like the fact of mentioning there is a sort of "greater" purpose to human experience or the choice of some purpose because it sort of creates a precise purpose as to why we live, and as I said, I think this purpose will always elucidate humans comprehension in some fashion. So, even my explanation of it is bound to my human self. Still, I do think all the purposes each individual aspire to are part of a "greater" purpose, but as such are all important in equal manner. Tho, I'd argue there might not even be a "greater" purpose to life, but I do still think having a purpose matter since this is what makes human strive and live. And to come full circle ; I believe if we experience humanity, then this experience itself might serve some other purpose or simply, a "something else" I might not ever be able to understand. But to live and experience life, then come the importance of establishing "good", "bad" and its gray zones.
For human to live, they've got senses to help them survive and simply live. From those senses, such as feelings, they can determine what is needed to adapt themselves to survive and simply live in an optimal state (well being). It goes beyond feelings of course, the brain is made to create patterns and schemes to adapt more rapidly, and those schemes themselves can alter how one experience their very needs, desires and simply feelings. In the end, the whole human complexity and functioning, to make it short, orient and allow to determine what will be "good" and "bad". So, establishing judgements become important to guide ourselves through life and also to establish purposes to our lives.
The reason why I wanted to mention bad and good is because despite trying to avoid the best I can to make judgements since the beginning due to my very belief, it is to clarify I do still think it matters to determine, judge, categorize, establish principles, rules for guidance and such, as it is thanks to this capability you can navigate through life and earn a sense of purpose. So, anyone deeming right or wrong certain way of living matters to the very purpose of experiencing humanity.
Also, the very sense of purpose is also what drives humans to live. Without a sense of purpose, or a sense given to life, whatever it is, humans usually experience enormous dreads and even fall prone to mental illnesses, potentially leading them to early death. However, dreading life isn't in itself a bad thing, and this will lead to my next point.
I'll use the concept of soul to talk about the consciousness separately from the human life. Some souls might purposefully choose to live and experience life with harsh human conditions. Some will even decide to embrace the ego experience and be the most detached possible from whatever "greater source" or from the "greater out there" to fully embrace the limitations that can be created within human life. And some might rather choose to have abilities to stay in touch with this "greater" to see how it affects the human experience ; theirs and the ones of other.
This leads me to my next point, I do think there might be some form of guides, call them spirits, angels, energy, even gods ; in the end, as I said they are guides and intermediate to recall the existence of something greater. Why recall that existence of something greater? I don't possess the answer to this question, but I would answer it as it might be important for the human experience to perceive or feel this greater existence to draw purpose from, and thus maybe because purpose is important to the human experience. Tho, like I said, I don't have the pretention to think I have the "true" interpretation for this reasoning. As I said, I also think some will decide to be disconnected from this "greater" aspect and even choose to experience "purposelessness".
To come back on the guides aspect, those guides or intermediates will take forms and shapes for humans to understand, or else they won't fulfill whatever purpose they have. We've got "limitations" after all. They might also manifest in a way we cannot guess they are intermediates and guides. I think they have their own purposes and goals, but I have even less certitude as to what those purposes might be, or why it could be to guide humans. But I assume there might be a purpose of guidance.
Before concluding, I want to come back on the notion of ego. The ego is both a challenge but also what allows to experience humanity as humanity. I dont think the main goal is to go beyond it, but going beyond it is probably what allow a greater access to the "greater", beyond human life. Since the weaker it is, the better most people feel and so, the more they strive to appreciate life and get and actualize purposes, which is what I seem to attribute the closest to humans main goals.
In the end, purpose seems central to my spiritual belief, but there is no better or worst purpose imo. They all lead to experience life differently, they are what drive humans to live, or even to die.
If there is a concept to englob my belief, I wouldn't mind, but I just didn't know the term lmao
I would also say that I must admit I would always suggest people to aim for their well being and to find purpose to live and to life itself, because it is infinitely more agreeable to live this way, but I have learned that when people want to stay engrossed in their view or ego, there is no use to convince them of any other way and to just let them be. They'll attract whatever they need to make them realize whatever they need to.
Tho dont get me wrong, I wouldn't justify murder, genocide, rape or even all other kind of gruesome bs or any kind of misfortune, but I cant help but believe there is something beyond my judgement leading to that kind of things happening. I still condemn certain acts, I am after all a human being.
Ok that's enough writing lmao. If you have any questions about it, don't hesitate to ask.
Thank you for the post. In reading it, the same question came up in my mind a few times: If you can see certain illusions, how do you unsee them for the sake of practical living? Examples of these illusions you allude to would be "greater purpose" (possibly illusory), personal purpose, absolute morality, ego, etc.
@azenta This is wonderfully articulated, I'm so glad you shared. While reading I got a sense that your view embodies such an integrated balance of perspectives; not discarding anything, but also knowing each thing's place as well as its limit.
I'm particularly interested in how you refrain from holding beliefs rigidly as certainties, remaining agnostic to the absolute truth of life, and instead focusing on how we can at least say that things are necessary for human life-operation.
Squeezing in a side-response to you Lapis, assuming I got her meaning right, I suppose this flavor of agnosticism allows for the two things to not be contradictory because it's not so much that we 'know' we're operating through illusions, for their convenience, but that we don't know the absolute reality-- yet we do know that we must act to the best of our knowledge. A proper humility of our human ignorance leaves room for the mystery that exists in this cosmos, and for that mystery to work its effects on us. 🙂
Ironically, I don't like the fact of mentioning there is a sort of "greater" purpose to human experience or the choice of some purpose because it sort of creates a precise purpose as to why we live, and as I said, I think this purpose will always elucidate humans comprehension in some fashion. So, even my explanation of it is bound to my human self
I really relate to this @azenta 🙂
To share a little too, the way I see it, humans are born with a certain programming, which includes our mental capacities, instincts, senses and our unconscious. However, being that evolution selects specifically for what serves the enhancement of our fitness and genetic interests, these programs are constricted towards that vector. Not just in the sense of the human body and mind being limited, but in the sense that whatever has not been programmed into humans via evolution, gets excluded from our capacity to even imagine it or experience it, let alone think about analytically. Anything that is not programmed into us, is like a color we have never seen before -- we cannot think about it no matter how hard we try; it’s simply outside of our programming.
Also, as humans we necessarily think in certain categories or intellectual representations such as in terms of time, space or causality, but these categories serve a kind of structure through which all of our perceptions of reality are filtered and mediated. But is a priori knowledge of the objectively-independent-of-us world truly possible or does human knowledge remain at some level subjective and relative? We come into this reality with our human toolset, and then fumble around with language games, philosophy and other tools we utilize for understanding life. But theoretical terms often do not indicate any ontological truth of the unobservable entities “referred” to by the terms. Ideas, concepts or beliefs may be useful tools for getting a better grasp of a certain phenomena, but they seldom reveal the true nature of that phenomena, and so it appears ultimate truth in its entirety will always exceed our limited human phenomenologically contingent grasp.
Yet at times we may feel like our tools are enough, and relish at the advancements of our understanding of the universe. And indeed, humanity has made great progress worthy of admiration. But when we poke our understanding enough, we sometimes find there is a point in which we hit a wall. For instance, we may ask what caused causality? And if we say the question is incorrectly framed, then that in itself is an acknowledgment of our limited human program. Our program is conscious enough to allow us to acknowledge our own limits of understanding, but it doesn’t necessarily allow us to pass the barriers. The way I see it, our current knowledge is a fraction of what is left to discover about the universe, and we are still ill equipped to make certain leaps. In my opinion our current mental abilities as a species only get us so far, and what might allow us to plunge deeper and beyond our current understandings might require a more advanced stage of consciousness. We are apes in our level of consciousness relative to what might be that of future humans.
While the above is the case for trying to grasp the true nature of the universe, things get even more complicated once we ask ourselves questions of pragmatic “practical living”, such as value structures, cultures or ideologies. We know that some beliefs are not factual, but that behaving as if they were factual results in our evolutionary benefit, serves our interests or regulates our emotions properly. For example, we may believe there is no free will, or realize even individualism is a myth [since organisms are algorithms, humans are not individuals as modern societies believe, but rather they are scientifically a collection of organisms that lack a 'self', and these organisms are not free but deterministic]. But is it not beneficial for us to act as if free will and individualism were true? It certainly seems to have been so historically, but this ‘gap’ may be very frustrating to minds that seek consistency and truth. Should we delude ourselves for the sake of our benefit?
Which leads me to @lapislazuli ‘s question:
If you can see certain illusions, how do you unsee them for the sake of practical living? Examples of these illusions you allude to would be "greater purpose" (possibly illusory), personal purpose, absolute morality, ego, etc.
In other words, are we to fool ourselves?
But as Azenta said:
In the end, the whole human complexity and functioning, to make it short, orient and allow to determine what will be "good" and "bad". So, establishing judgements become important to guide ourselves through life and also to establish purposes to our lives.
In my opinion, of course there is no need for self delusion. And it seems to me that instrumental beliefs have a way of 'self-exposing' their own fallacies when, first individuals and then cultures more broadly, have evolved sufficiently to utilize them maximally but without holding to their literal accounts. In which case, humanity upgrades the level of its instrumental myths. It also doesn’t mean we can’t believe in an objective reality independent of human phenomenology, or a metaphysical one for that matter . It simply means we are aware of that gap, and that our operations at times are somewhat of a symbolic representation of something more real or objectively true. This could mean holding a view that our subjective perception is a fallacy serving our path to getting closer to truth. But it could also mean holding the view that our perceptions, however subjective, still hold some connection with their more authentic source of truth and are thus true under this definition. We may also utilize concepts that work by assuming they “latch on" to or correspond to real properties that causally lead to successful usage of the concepts, as long as we are aware we might also be wrong. This is ultimately what creates values systems, which humans need for survival, and there is no untruth in using concepts, values and social structures as long as we are aware of the clear separation between what is factually true and what is only being utilized for human purpose and advancement.
I disagree with your beliefs @bella
We are not just programmed automatons
@lapislazuli Auburn and Bella answered it for me.
In my own words, however you address life is correct in the "greater" perspective. Even choosing to follow illusions isn't a bad thing, or wrong in itself. You can follow illusions and still manage to live and fulfill your life. It depends of your soul purpose, not your human purpose. As I said, your soul purpose could be to live fully into the veil of the ego, of human limitations and be totally disconnected from that greater existence. It could be toally impractical, but that's maybe what the soul decided to experience, even if it could be extremely painful to live as a human. Or your soul purpose could be to dismantle those illusions, or limitations, while being limited into actually achieving so, as a way to see until how far can you close the gap between human experience and greater existence.
There is not a truer way in how I conceived this "greater" existence. We possess only fragments of truths due to our limitations as a human being, but those fragments and what we do or not with them are part of living humanity.
Thank you for the replies to my question. I probably shouldn't say more, since the last thing I want to do is argue my negativity onto other people, but I'll mention that as a higher purpose of last resort, there is self-sacrifice. I wonder whether, had I made that my higher purpose of first resort when I was young, I would have avoided the spiritual and intellectual dead ends that prompt the questions above, and from which I don't foresee escape. It would be satisfying to be able to transfer the life within the perfectly healthy body I am not using for any purpose to someone who is filled with a sense of purpose but whose physical disabilities may prevent them from fulfilling it. Perhaps technology will make this possible one day. Could voluntary human sacrifice to the gods have been the desperate and misguided attempts by people in this condition to deal with the conundrum of transferring life to others in the past? In the meantime, an unhealthy mind occupying a healthy body feels like such a waste.
I mentioned the character Private Witt from the movie The Thing Red Line (one of whose subjects is the modern ritual of mass human sacrifice through state warfare) in another thread as someone to be admired, but on further reflection, he would be someone worthy of emulation, or even ego integration, as well. He not only succeeded in transferring his life to another, but multiplied his life by sacrificing it for many others in his company when he used himself as a decoy. Life doesn't present opportunities like that very often though.
Sacrificing life for others seems to be an adaptive Fe spiritual ideal. I would rather sacrifice myself for truth, which is maybe a Ti directive Fe ideal, because there are people who ignorantly try to suppress the truth. Like those who try to suppress the sometimes subtle, sometimes overt racism in America.
Also, I wouldn't sacrifice myself individually. I would be part of a group or collective who is fighting for the truth. What do you think?
Hmm, think it about it more. I would sacrifice for others, but only if it was in a group of loved ones, people I care about. Not for someone I don't know.
Whether I sacrifice myself individually or with a group wouldn't matter. Death for the sake of truth--for example as a whistleblower like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, etc--would be satisfying as well. But I would also be willing to die simply for my organs to be used to save other lives. The main question I would consider is whether the reasons for my decision would be understood and accepted by loved ones. E.g., in some cases I might wait until my teenage kids are more grown up.
But like I said, it's exceedingly rare to find oneself in situations where these kinds of sacrifices are possible, so it is mostly just a beautiful fantasy for depiction in movies like the one I referred to. Even suicide in such a way that one's critical organs are usable by others is not easy to arrange and would never be guaranteed successful (I'll admit that I've looked into this during particularly severe depressive episodes), and such explicit arrangements are illegal in every part of the world I know of.
I can see why you would characterize this outlook as "adaptive Fe". By transferring life to other people, one's own life takes on the purposes of those who are saved, regardless of what those may be, even while one remains agnostic about a "higher purpose" for one's own life. But I suspect that this outlook goes beyond the explanatory reaches of CT.