Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well, people used to interpret experiences with hallucinogenic substances as religious/spiritual (some still do). Would you say that your own experience fundamentally differs? Obviously you didn't ingest chemicals but other than that, is the end result substantially different?


The original question, to which I answered, was, that what does non-religious spirituality mean? I described what a spiritual experience felt like to me.

So, I suppose the key here is the personal experience.

I'm sure there are a lot of ways people can have deep spiritual experiences without them interpreting it as communicating with divine forces.


I didn't mean to try to belittle you experience in any way.

The one thing I am tying to validate / invalidate is weather "spiritual" as used by non religious people, is mere hacking of our delicate physical and chemical machinery.


Uh, no, I didn't understand it as belitteling. I think you raised a fair point in the context of this discussion. I don't think we have very good syntax yet to discuss these things.

I don't know, but I have a gut feeling the spiritual awe one gets from one religious sacrament or another and getting it through other means are the same thing.

Effectively, the way I see it, religions claim something that is universal and publicly available as under their domain. It's like a guy came and wanted to resell the air you breath back at you.

Similarly I feel drug afficionados are sometimes overselling their hobby as the one key to the mysteries of the universe.

I don't mind if someone is religious or likes to do drugs. What I don't like, is that one or another claims something that can gained by other means as belonging to their dominion.

The major religions are especially intransigent and arrogant about this in their creed - claiming things that belong to all men and women to belong only to one sect or another - thus poisoning themselves doubly by first trying to fool those outside of their creed, and then being intellectually dishonest of their own experiences.


> The one thing I am tying to validate / invalidate is weather "spiritual" as used by non religious people, is mere hacking of our delicate physical and chemical machinery.

It really is, if our minds are entirely a manifestation of the brain.


What makes "mere hacking" different from true enlightenment?

Is it just the perspective of the one who has the experience? As Tim Leary said: The caterpillar cannot understand the butterfly.


One is rational and comprehensible, the other one isn't. At least that is how I read "spiritual" and "enlightenment"




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: