From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Jun 14 2001 - 01:39:24 MDT
Russell Blackford wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins said
>
> >A lot hinges on just what you mean by "rational" and
> >"religious". I believe that it is not only possible but even
> >necessary to have some handle on at least what I would call the
> >"spiritual" if not the "religious" aspects of existence if one
> >is to be not only "rational" but have much real "wisdom".
>
> But what do you mean by "spiritual"? This seems to me an over-used word in
> our contemporary culture and it's one that I deliberately avoid. I certainly
> do accept the significance of the artistic, aesthetic, deeply personal,
> moral, etc aspects of our lives. One or more of these is often meant by the
> word "spiritual", but I can find no separate use for the word "spiritual"
> and I dislike it, even as a kind of catch-all expression for all the above,
> because it suggests, or at least insinuates or relies on the resonances of,
> a supernatural realm.
I asked you first. :-)
But ok. By spiritual I mean all of the above but something
more. Part of that more is difficult to describe. It is a
living with a vision, purpose and reverence for both the process
and the goal, a moment by moment integration of being and
becoming. It includes both an acceptance of what is and a deep
acceptance of what can be, will be and of the steps in making it
so. It is a being one with all being past and future. It is
not easily captured in words. It is not fully fenced by reason
and logic. In the end it must be experienced to be apprehended.
What is supernatural? Is producing food out of apparently thin
air on nothing but dirt almost instantly "supernatural"? For
most of humanity's existence it would have been considered so.
It is nothing of the sort with the right kind of MNT and
knowledge.
We are headed to the realm where all we thought of as miracles
or things beyond the natural or of things only "for God" are
stuff we ourselves and our children will need to learn to live
with and to use wisely - at least enough so to avoid gray goo.
That will take more than pure science and rationality. It
requires our earth and our vision and our deepest Love.
I think parts of many spiritual traditions have much that can be
learned from for doing this sort of "spiritual" work. Truly
they have a lot of traps and pitfalls also. But that deep quest
for transcendence, that deep drive toward human perfection and
toward godhood, dwell at the center of almost all of those
traditions. To disown them utterly would be to throw away a lot
of the energy that empowers many of our own dreams and quite a
bit of work wrestling with the self.
>
> >Although to be honest it sets even my teeth on edge to have to
> >dance around these concepts at times. But I don't think the
> >"religious" have any monopoly on "irrational" and generally
> >boneheaded ideas and practices.
>
> Granted. But I get tired of what are essentially religious or
> quasi-religious objections to biotechnology. "Quasi-religious" objections
> include those of a lot of professional bioethicists, such as Margaret
> Somerville. In her case, she keeps blathering about how we must give "deep
> respect" or "reverence" to life, including every embryo, even when it's only
> a clump of 8-or-whatever cells. I can see no basis to give the same sort of
> respect to an early embryo, which has no feelings, thoughts, prefences or
> even nervous system, as we give to a fully-formed human person (or as we
> give to, say, a late-term fetus or a new-born baby, but there are a *lot* of
> issues here).
>
I agree. But that doesn't really stand on one side or the other
of what I mean by "spiritual" or what you mean by "rational".
It looks more like a discomfort with our developing abilities
and a fear not well seen or articulated that we might lose
something vital, that we might leave something critical out of
our planning and actions. I think there is a bit of genuine
concern in there somewhere that has gotten attached to a pretty
pointless position.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:07 MST