Relativism has become the new totalitarianism

Goldman Sachs said:Well, I honestly think an atheist can be spiritual too. In my opinion, there’s actually plenty of room for both to exist at once. I truly believe that spirituality isn't some metric you can just pull out a ruler for. It’s not something meant to be quantified or measured by anyone.It’s all well and good to try and quantify everything and put it on a scale, though I know hiddenpuma75 doesn't quite see things that way. Still, fair enough—he's clearly arrived at some different conclusions.

Look, just to be clear, I’m not talking about my conversation with Goldman Sachs here. I’m actually addressing the nine out of ten "spiritual gurus" on this forum who are constantly pushing these ideas of forced uniformity and leveling everything down. It honestly feels like being stuck in a Borg hive, where everyone is expected to chant the same mindless mantra: "We are all enlightened, we are all spiritual." Give me a break.

I decided to pick her quote and bold the core message, but honestly, you could find snippets like this every single day. You'll run into them constantly in any discussion about spirituality—whether you're talking to nine out of ten people claiming to be "enlightened" or just chatting with the local New Age crowd.

I’d suggest kicking things off with an ultra-brief overview of how this new era of spiritual totalitarianism actually came to be.

We’ve all seen how historical totalitarianism has played out within organized religions. Throughout history, they have often been incredibly exclusive, operating under this rigid "us versus them" mentality—basically telling everyone else that they're wrong and headed straight for damnation.

The turn of the 20th century ushered in a brand-new brand of totalitarianism—one that flipped the religious coin on its head to introduce state atheism. The prevailing mantra back then was pretty bleak: they viewed all religions and believers as nothing more than souls trapped in a living hell. In their eyes, paradise was reserved exclusively for the proletariat.

Back in the 1970s, a whole new spiritual movement began to take root right here in the States before gradually spreading across the globe. We could easily call it the "New Age" era.
His whole philosophy really boiled down to this: just let life bloom, everything will work out in the end, and all you really need is love. That was his mantra.
There are endless directions and infinite combinations when it comes to spirituality. It feels like a sort of spiritual communism—an attempt at total equality where everyone is leveled out. It’s essentially trying to turn spirituality into a mass-market product for the masses.

Honestly, we might just want to step back and ask ourselves: what exactly is the problem here?

The real essence of this is somewhat subtle and potentially difficult to spot. I’m hoping I can manage to convey it clearly without letting the introduction drift into something overly broad or tedious. Please bear with me while I find my footing.

8)
The quote from Goldman Sachs was written with such a spirit of tolerance that, at first glance, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. She didn't seem to have any bad intentions at all. It feels like a classic, optimistic New Age sentiment—a prime example of "spiritual democracy" and inclusivity. It’s that kind of open-mindedness that attempts to rise above religious exclusivity and that old habit of thinking, "We're the only ones who have it right."

9)
I’d love to see if you can grasp how this modern obsession with tolerance and relativism has actually morphed into a new kind of totalitarianism—a new way of being completely exclusionary.

It seems like, all of a sudden, these kinds of phrases and perspectives have become incredibly trendy—almost everywhere you look. There’s this pervasive, almost auto-hypnotic quality to how people are repeating these exact same sentiments lately.

I think we’ve all reached that level of enlightenment.🙂
Honestly, I think everyone is just inherently spiritual in their own way.
It really doesn't matter who you are or what you do—or even if you choose to do nothing at all. In the grand scheme of things, it's all the same.
At the end of the day, I truly believe that every method, every teacher, and every single person out there is perfectly fine just as they are.

It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I'm ready to get to work on your copy, but I need the source text first. Whenever you're ready, just drop the content here. I'll make sure to give it that polished, authentic American feel while keeping the original heart and soul intact. Looking forward to it!

10) It’s finally time to pull back the curtain on this "relativist emperor" and show you all exactly why he's nothing more than a fraud.

I mean, look—even if those statements are technically accurate in an absolute sense, they’ve essentially been borrowed or even outright lifted from the people who actually put in the work, took the risks, and finally made it happen.
This isn't actually trading based on skill or hard work; it's just playing around with inherited wealth or money that was taken from someone else.

At the end of the day, we really have to ask ourselves: what level of consciousness was operating when that was said?
We’re all part of the same whole, so really, none of this matters in the grand scheme of things.

Did someone actually achieve that, or is it just someone trying to ride someone else's coattails?
It’s easy for someone who hasn't actually broken a sweat to sit comfortably in their room and claim that nothing really matters. They love to act like there’s nothing left to accomplish or achieve because they’ve already "made it," so they just lie around listening to music while watching hiddenpuma75 ramble on.

b)
The rise of this new kind of totalitarianism is happening because... Don't you dare criticize what I call spiritual democracy and universal enlightenment.

The new proponents of "equality" will try to lecture you on how everything is essentially the same. They’ll tell you there are no differences, no standards, and no such thing as excellence—whether you're raising a child, writing a book, building a house, or tending a garden. Everything is just... fine.

They’ll offer you milk and honey, but
but
but

BUT THE SECOND YOU START CRITICIZING THEM, 😉

Notice the paradox here: everything is permitted, everyone is welcome, and we are all supposedly "spiritual"—except for the people who dare to criticize them. Suddenly, they aren't welcome anymore. 🙂

For instance, if someone like hiddenpuma75 points out a flaw, or if it's the Church, the government, or even the American Medical Association opposing Reiki masters,

and if you say to these "spiritual proletarians,"

"Look, not everyone is enlightened,"
"And not everything is spiritual,"
"Or that atheism isn't a spiritual path,"
—that a true spiritual school or a real teacher doesn't turn spirituality into a commercial commodity

well, then you're suddenly unwelcome!

They'll tell you that you just don't get it, that you lack understanding, and that you MUST be tolerant 🤣
and just accept everything.

I actually illustrated this point to a fellow forum member recently with a rather funny little example.

If everything is truly fine and nothing matters, why bother choosing which shoes to wear or which partner to date? ---

==================================
Ugh,

Sorry for the long rant, but it's surprisingly difficult to unmask this modern, foggy spiritual relativism
and the mediocrity that hides behind a cloud of empty phrases,

eroding time-tested values like tradition, discipline, and ethics,

as well as the actual measurement and testing of achievement and skill.
Essentially, they are undermining the very goal of religion through the methods of science.

They attempt to relativize excellence and the tangible fruits of one's labor
and those eternal truths.

A tree is known by its fruit, after all.

In other words, success is the proof of a person's worth.

👋

It’s how things work for a Reiki master, but really, it applies to more than just them.

REIKI.

Think of it as a subtle, modern intelligence test for two or more people.
The setup is simple: one person, calling themselves a Reiki master , sends the other person free, invisible light, energy, love, and plenty of visible smiles. In exchange for this service, they receive colorful slips of paper from the recipient—what some might call money.

The "test" is considered passed at the exact moment the person handing over those colorful bills asks the Reiki master:--

"Wait, why am I paying you for free energy, light, and love?"

Psychologists have noted that at this precise moment, the Reiki masters unexpectedly stop sending the love and the smiles
and launch into an endless series of metaphysical lectures and observations about how hard life is and how everything at the local grocery store is getting way too expensive.
This little test is incredibly popular across America, and many have successfully passed it (estimates suggest around 10,000 people, if you check Wikipedia).

(Note: there are various versions of this test called KAHUNA, MAHUNA, or the USUI test, but the core principles remain identical.
Some economists actually view REIKI and ASTROLOGY as mechanisms for redistributing wealth among the population. It’s essentially a subtle social mechanism where the person who lacks common sense but has plenty of cash gains "experience," while the person who lacks cash but possesses an education as thick as a textbook walks away with colorful slips of paper and a sense of satisfaction.)

Florine wasn't suggesting that every single individual is some sort of "enlightened" being; rather, her point was that we are inherently spiritual by the very nature of existing within language, civilization, and culture. Just the mere fact that we possess this specific capacity for complex speech and organized culture is what fundamentally sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom... In a sense, humans are "spiritual animals" because of that connection. If you consider that every person possesses a "spirit," or that some kind of "spirit" is woven directly into the languages and cultures we inhabit—which it absolutely is—then everyone is, by definition, spiritual. This way of looking at spirituality is quite different from that trendy, "specialized" version of spirituality you see being peddled everywhere in our current post-Christian, transitional American society...

Regarding this idea of "oneness," that’s really the hallmark of that specific brand of New Age thought, which is where that tendency toward what you—though perhaps not strictly from a linguistic standpoint—call relativism comes from...

mistyscout2 said:Florine wasn't suggesting that every single individual is some sort of "enlightened" being; rather, her point was that we are inherently spiritual by the very nature of existing within language, civilization, and culture. Just the mere fact that we possess this specific capacity for complex speech and organized culture is what fundamentally sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom... In a sense, humans are "spiritual animals" because of that connection. If you consider that every person possesses a "spirit," or that some kind of "spirit" is woven directly into the languages and cultures we inhabit—which it absolutely is—then everyone is, by definition, spiritual. This way of looking at spirituality is quite different from that trendy, "specialized" version of spirituality you see being peddled everywhere in our current post-Christian, transitional American society...

Regarding this idea of "oneness," that’s really the hallmark of that specific brand of New Age thought, which is where that tendency toward what you—though perhaps not strictly from a linguistic standpoint—call relativism comes from...

1) What exactly is flawed about using the term "relativism" (in the sense of rhetorically downplaying certain established, traditional values and achievements)?

2) If you don't like that term, what would you suggest using instead?

I’d never put you in that group of people who actually have the guts to say that just because something is labeled "spiritual," doesn't mean it actually is.

I'm pleasantly surprised here, Persifale.
Honestly, I’m starting to wonder why I even bother arguing with you!

That old saying still holds water: "All that glitters is not gold." Or, in your case—given all that neoliberal, quasi-spiritual, pop-culture, inclusive, politically correct, "good vibes only" nonsense—it's basically "know-it-alls who actually know nothing."

👍

PS.
This isn't aimed at Floverka... or more accurately, this whole trendy wave of relativism that mistyscout2 is always talking about.

hiddenpuma75 said:Look, just to be clear, I’m not talking about my conversation with Goldman Sachs here. I’m actually addressing the nine out of ten "spiritual gurus" on this forum who are constantly pushing these ideas of forced uniformity and leveling everything down. It honestly feels like being stuck in a Borg hive, where everyone is expected to chant the same mindless mantra: "We are all enlightened, we are all spiritual." Give me a break.

I decided to pick her quote and bold the core message, but honestly, you could find snippets like this every single day. You'll run into them constantly in any discussion about spirituality—whether you're talking to nine out of ten people claiming to be "enlightened" or just chatting with the local New Age crowd.

I’d suggest kicking things off with an ultra-brief overview of how this new era of spiritual totalitarianism actually came to be.

We’ve all seen how historical totalitarianism has played out within organized religions. Throughout history, they have often been incredibly exclusive, operating under this rigid "us versus them" mentality—basically telling everyone else that they're wrong and headed straight for damnation.

The turn of the 20th century ushered in a brand-new brand of totalitarianism—one that flipped the religious coin on its head to introduce state atheism. The prevailing mantra back then was pretty bleak: they viewed all religions and believers as nothing more than souls trapped in a living hell. In their eyes, paradise was reserved exclusively for the proletariat.

Back in the 1970s, a whole new spiritual movement began to take root right here in the States before gradually spreading across the globe. We could easily call it the "New Age" era.
His whole philosophy really boiled down to this: just let life bloom, everything will work out in the end, and all you really need is love. That was his mantra.
There are endless directions and infinite combinations when it comes to spirituality. It feels like a sort of spiritual communism—an attempt at total equality where everyone is leveled out. It’s essentially trying to turn spirituality into a mass-market product for the masses.

Honestly, we might just want to step back and ask ourselves: what exactly is the problem here?

The real essence of this is somewhat subtle and potentially difficult to spot. I’m hoping I can manage to convey it clearly without letting the introduction drift into something overly broad or tedious. Please bear with me while I find my footing.

8)
The quote from Goldman Sachs was written with such a spirit of tolerance that, at first glance, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. She didn't seem to have any bad intentions at all. It feels like a classic, optimistic New Age sentiment—a prime example of "spiritual democracy" and inclusivity. It’s that kind of open-mindedness that attempts to rise above religious exclusivity and that old habit of thinking, "We're the only ones who have it right."

9)
I’d love to see if you can grasp how this modern obsession with tolerance and relativism has actually morphed into a new kind of totalitarianism—a new way of being completely exclusionary.

It seems like, all of a sudden, these kinds of phrases and perspectives have become incredibly trendy—almost everywhere you look. There’s this pervasive, almost auto-hypnotic quality to how people are repeating these exact same sentiments lately.

I think we’ve all reached that level of enlightenment.🙂
Honestly, I think everyone is just inherently spiritual in their own way.
It really doesn't matter who you are or what you do—or even if you choose to do nothing at all. In the grand scheme of things, it's all the same.
At the end of the day, I truly believe that every method, every teacher, and every single person out there is perfectly fine just as they are.

It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I'm ready to get to work on your copy, but I need the source text first. Whenever you're ready, just drop the content here. I'll make sure to give it that polished, authentic American feel while keeping the original heart and soul intact. Looking forward to it!

10) It’s finally time to pull back the curtain on this "relativist emperor" and show you all exactly why he's nothing more than a fraud.

I mean, look—even if those statements are technically accurate in an absolute sense, they’ve essentially been borrowed or even outright lifted from the people who actually put in the work, took the risks, and finally made it happen.
This isn't actually trading based on skill or hard work; it's just playing around with inherited wealth or money that was taken from someone else.

At the end of the day, we really have to ask ourselves: what level of consciousness was operating when that was said?
We’re all part of the same whole, so really, none of this matters in the grand scheme of things.

Did someone actually achieve that, or is it just someone trying to ride someone else's coattails?
It’s easy for someone who hasn't actually broken a sweat to sit comfortably in their room and claim that nothing really matters. They love to act like there’s nothing left to accomplish or achieve because they’ve already "made it," so they just lie around listening to music while watching hiddenpuma75 ramble on.

b)
The rise of this new kind of totalitarianism is happening because... Don't you dare criticize what I call spiritual democracy and universal enlightenment.

The new proponents of "equality" will try to lecture you on how everything is essentially the same. They’ll tell you there are no differences, no standards, and no such thing as excellence—whether you're raising a child, writing a book, building a house, or tending a garden. Everything is just... fine.

They’ll offer you milk and honey, but
but
but

BUT THE SECOND YOU START CRITICIZING THEM, 😉

Notice the paradox here: everything is permitted, everyone is welcome, and we are all supposedly "spiritual"—except for the people who dare to criticize them. Suddenly, they aren't welcome anymore. 🙂

For instance, if someone like hiddenpuma75 points out a flaw, or if it's the Church, the government, or even the American Medical Association opposing Reiki masters,

and if you say to these "spiritual proletarians,"

"Look, not everyone is enlightened,"
"And not everything is spiritual,"
"Or that atheism isn't a spiritual path,"
—that a true spiritual school or a real teacher doesn't turn spirituality into a commercial commodity

well, then you're suddenly unwelcome!

They'll tell you that you just don't get it, that you lack understanding, and that you MUST be tolerant 🤣
and just accept everything.

I actually illustrated this point to a fellow forum member recently with a rather funny little example.

If everything is truly fine and nothing matters, why bother choosing which shoes to wear or which partner to date? ---

==================================
Ugh,

Sorry for the long rant, but it's surprisingly difficult to unmask this modern, foggy spiritual relativism
and the mediocrity that hides behind a cloud of empty phrases,

eroding time-tested values like tradition, discipline, and ethics,

as well as the actual measurement and testing of achievement and skill.
Essentially, they are undermining the very goal of religion through the methods of science.

They attempt to relativize excellence and the tangible fruits of one's labor
and those eternal truths.

A tree is known by its fruit, after all.

In other words, success is the proof of a person's worth.

👋

To avoid quoting the entire passage...👍

I pose similar questions to people, yet I have yet to receive a single coherent response.

It is all well and good to discuss these matters in a purely theoretical sense, but heaven forbid anyone actually attempts to apply such logic to their daily lives. The moment one tries, that supposed "truth" vanishes in a heartbeat.

For us—selfish practitioners of the dark arts—it isn't all the same; we are simply busy feeding our own egos. 😁

Jeremy Davis7 said:I’d never put you in that group of people who actually have the guts to say that just because something is labeled "spiritual," doesn't mean it actually is.

I'm pleasantly surprised here, Persifale.
Honestly, I’m starting to wonder why I even bother arguing with you!

That old saying still holds water: "All that glitters is not gold." Or, in your case—given all that neoliberal, quasi-spiritual, pop-culture, inclusive, politically correct, "good vibes only" nonsense—it's basically "know-it-alls who actually know nothing."

👍

PS.
This isn't aimed at Floverka... or more accurately, this whole trendy wave of relativism that mistyscout2 is always talking about.

1) For my part, things are perfectly clear. 😉

2) We don't know each other as well as you seem to think, and since I don't have any forum spies to dig up the juicy details, I can only judge based on our digital impressions.

3) I suspect we’re quite similar in how we carry ourselves—two peas in a pod, really. 😲

4) We write well, but we tend to be overly wordy; we lack that punchy, concise clarity that Ryan Wilson2 has mastered.

5) We think we’re pretty smart, 🙂 😛 but we're far too emotional. We aren't as "cool" as Ryan Wilson2, 🙂 which means we get burned easily by anyone who messes with our vibe.

6) We’ve been through the ringer and finally realized there's a reason they call the old stuff a classic.

7) It’s easy for us to clash because we’ve lived through enough to feel like everyone else should have figured it out by now. When they don't, and those "ignorant" types end up getting under our skin, we react too intensely, ruin the mood, and the cycle repeats *ad infinitum*.
We don't know how to bicker like those witty comedians 🙂 who fight constantly but keep it all lighthearted and sarcastic.
Take him, for example—he used to be known as the forum's biggest critic of women, yet they absolutely adore him.
As a sort of penance, he has to keep them entertained. 🙂
We, on the other hand, take our arguments way too seriously 🙄 because, let's face it, not everything is a joke—some things are life and death.

Until our next inevitable disagreement (because let's be honest, the audience finds it much more entertaining), 🍿
👋

mistyscout2 said:Florine wasn't suggesting that every single individual is some sort of "enlightened" being; rather, her point was that we are inherently spiritual by the very nature of existing within language, civilization, and culture. Just the mere fact that we possess this specific capacity for complex speech and organized culture is what fundamentally sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom... In a sense, humans are "spiritual animals" because of that connection. If you consider that every person possesses a "spirit," or that some kind of "spirit" is woven directly into the languages and cultures we inhabit—which it absolutely is—then everyone is, by definition, spiritual. This way of looking at spirituality is quite different from that trendy, "specialized" version of spirituality you see being peddled everywhere in our current post-Christian, transitional American society...

Regarding this idea of "oneness," that’s really the hallmark of that specific brand of New Age thought, which is where that tendency toward what you—though perhaps not strictly from a linguistic standpoint—call relativism comes from...

Dear mistyscout2, you truly are a RELIGIOUS animal... I believe my dear Eliphas Levi 😁would put it quite simply like that.

hiddenpuma75 said:Look, just to be clear, I’m not talking about my conversation with Goldman Sachs here. I’m actually addressing the nine out of ten "spiritual gurus" on this forum who are constantly pushing these ideas of forced uniformity and leveling everything down. It honestly feels like being stuck in a Borg hive, where everyone is expected to chant the same mindless mantra: "We are all enlightened, we are all spiritual." Give me a break.

I decided to pick her quote and bold the core message, but honestly, you could find snippets like this every single day. You'll run into them constantly in any discussion about spirituality—whether you're talking to nine out of ten people claiming to be "enlightened" or just chatting with the local New Age crowd.

I’d suggest kicking things off with an ultra-brief overview of how this new era of spiritual totalitarianism actually came to be.

We’ve all seen how historical totalitarianism has played out within organized religions. Throughout history, they have often been incredibly exclusive, operating under this rigid "us versus them" mentality—basically telling everyone else that they're wrong and headed straight for damnation.

The turn of the 20th century ushered in a brand-new brand of totalitarianism—one that flipped the religious coin on its head to introduce state atheism. The prevailing mantra back then was pretty bleak: they viewed all religions and believers as nothing more than souls trapped in a living hell. In their eyes, paradise was reserved exclusively for the proletariat.

Back in the 1970s, a whole new spiritual movement began to take root right here in the States before gradually spreading across the globe. We could easily call it the "New Age" era.
His whole philosophy really boiled down to this: just let life bloom, everything will work out in the end, and all you really need is love. That was his mantra.
There are endless directions and infinite combinations when it comes to spirituality. It feels like a sort of spiritual communism—an attempt at total equality where everyone is leveled out. It’s essentially trying to turn spirituality into a mass-market product for the masses.

Honestly, we might just want to step back and ask ourselves: what exactly is the problem here?

The real essence of this is somewhat subtle and potentially difficult to spot. I’m hoping I can manage to convey it clearly without letting the introduction drift into something overly broad or tedious. Please bear with me while I find my footing.

8)
The quote from Goldman Sachs was written with such a spirit of tolerance that, at first glance, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. She didn't seem to have any bad intentions at all. It feels like a classic, optimistic New Age sentiment—a prime example of "spiritual democracy" and inclusivity. It’s that kind of open-mindedness that attempts to rise above religious exclusivity and that old habit of thinking, "We're the only ones who have it right."

9)
I’d love to see if you can grasp how this modern obsession with tolerance and relativism has actually morphed into a new kind of totalitarianism—a new way of being completely exclusionary.

It seems like, all of a sudden, these kinds of phrases and perspectives have become incredibly trendy—almost everywhere you look. There’s this pervasive, almost auto-hypnotic quality to how people are repeating these exact same sentiments lately.

I think we’ve all reached that level of enlightenment.🙂
Honestly, I think everyone is just inherently spiritual in their own way.
It really doesn't matter who you are or what you do—or even if you choose to do nothing at all. In the grand scheme of things, it's all the same.
At the end of the day, I truly believe that every method, every teacher, and every single person out there is perfectly fine just as they are.

It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I'm ready to get to work on your copy, but I need the source text first. Whenever you're ready, just drop the content here. I'll make sure to give it that polished, authentic American feel while keeping the original heart and soul intact. Looking forward to it!

10) It’s finally time to pull back the curtain on this "relativist emperor" and show you all exactly why he's nothing more than a fraud.

I mean, look—even if those statements are technically accurate in an absolute sense, they’ve essentially been borrowed or even outright lifted from the people who actually put in the work, took the risks, and finally made it happen.
This isn't actually trading based on skill or hard work; it's just playing around with inherited wealth or money that was taken from someone else.

At the end of the day, we really have to ask ourselves: what level of consciousness was operating when that was said?
We’re all part of the same whole, so really, none of this matters in the grand scheme of things.

Did someone actually achieve that, or is it just someone trying to ride someone else's coattails?
It’s easy for someone who hasn't actually broken a sweat to sit comfortably in their room and claim that nothing really matters. They love to act like there’s nothing left to accomplish or achieve because they’ve already "made it," so they just lie around listening to music while watching hiddenpuma75 ramble on.

b)
The rise of this new kind of totalitarianism is happening because... Don't you dare criticize what I call spiritual democracy and universal enlightenment.

The new proponents of "equality" will try to lecture you on how everything is essentially the same. They’ll tell you there are no differences, no standards, and no such thing as excellence—whether you're raising a child, writing a book, building a house, or tending a garden. Everything is just... fine.

They’ll offer you milk and honey, but
but
but

BUT THE SECOND YOU START CRITICIZING THEM, 😉

Notice the paradox here: everything is permitted, everyone is welcome, and we are all supposedly "spiritual"—except for the people who dare to criticize them. Suddenly, they aren't welcome anymore. 🙂

For instance, if someone like hiddenpuma75 points out a flaw, or if it's the Church, the government, or even the American Medical Association opposing Reiki masters,

and if you say to these "spiritual proletarians,"

"Look, not everyone is enlightened,"
"And not everything is spiritual,"
"Or that atheism isn't a spiritual path,"
—that a true spiritual school or a real teacher doesn't turn spirituality into a commercial commodity

well, then you're suddenly unwelcome!

They'll tell you that you just don't get it, that you lack understanding, and that you MUST be tolerant 🤣
and just accept everything.

I actually illustrated this point to a fellow forum member recently with a rather funny little example.

If everything is truly fine and nothing matters, why bother choosing which shoes to wear or which partner to date? ---

==================================
Ugh,

Sorry for the long rant, but it's surprisingly difficult to unmask this modern, foggy spiritual relativism
and the mediocrity that hides behind a cloud of empty phrases,

eroding time-tested values like tradition, discipline, and ethics,

as well as the actual measurement and testing of achievement and skill.
Essentially, they are undermining the very goal of religion through the methods of science.

They attempt to relativize excellence and the tangible fruits of one's labor
and those eternal truths.

A tree is known by its fruit, after all.

In other words, success is the proof of a person's worth.

👋

Well now, since this particular quote feels somewhat isolated from its original context, I find myself compelled to offer a bit of clarification. The discussion centered on the claim that faith in God serves as a guarantee of one's integrity. I simply do not subscribe to that view. To me, being a spiritual person isn't some grand, exceptional status; as mistyscout2 suggests, spirit is a fundamental quality of all people—and if I may extend that thought, I believe it applies to animals as well. In my estimation, fostering spirituality is more about becoming a well-rounded, universally minded individual than it is about religious faith; in fact, I often find that rigid belief can feel overly dogmatic and intellectually stifling.
At the same time, I fully recognize that there is significant room for personal growth within spirituality. I certainly cannot claim to hold even a fraction of the insight possessed by figures such as Levi, Aleister Crowley, George Gurdjieff, Jiddu Krishnamurti, or Ken Wilber, and my own modest realizations are nowhere near the depth of the masters who serve as the intellectual nourishment for my curiosity. Achieving true progress in spirituality requires immense, disciplined effort; I do not believe it is something that occurs just by 🙂

hiddenpuma75 said:1) What exactly is flawed about using the term "relativism" (in the sense of rhetorically downplaying certain established, traditional values and achievements)?

2) If you don't like that term, what would you suggest using instead?

I wouldn't say the term "relativism" is entirely "wrong," per se, but my point was more about how when someone claims something is "relative," they don't mean it's just "whatever" or totally arbitrary. It really means it is defined in RELATION—that is, in a RELATIONSHIP—to something else. It all depends on which frame of reference you're looking through...

hiddenpuma75 said:1) What exactly is flawed about using the term "relativism" (in the sense of rhetorically downplaying certain established, traditional values and achievements)?

2) If you don't like that term, what would you suggest using instead?

It's not so much a specific term, but more like the phrase "anything goes"—which is the first thing that pops into my head that sounds decent, though I'm sure there are probably better ways to put it that I can't think of right this second 😁. And honestly, even that phrase has been pulled away from its original context from Paul Feyerabend and started being used in a way that's quite different from what he actually intended... But, I'm sure there are even better terms out there. So, it isn't that "relativism" is some uniquely flawed word; I just want to highlight how people often miss the connection between the word "relativism" and the idea of a "relation." When something is relative, it exists in relation to something else. Then you have that folksy old saying, "everything is relative"—well, of course it is, since everything is constantly interacting with other beings, objects, and so on. The problem is that this popular little cliché is just kind of mindless; it's not even really "thought" (hence my quotes), it just becomes this lazy, conformist slogan people toss out when they've hit a wall in a discussion, run out of intellectual steam, or simply want to dodge the hard work of thinking and questioning things. When people say "everything is relative," they usually mean there aren't any universal values or rules, I suppose... but I suspect there are, even if those values take on different shapes and relationships along the way...

hiddenhound3 said:Dear mistyscout2, you truly are a RELIGIOUS animal... I believe my dear Eliphas Levi 😁would put it quite simply like that.

Well, if that's what he would have said, then fine. But I was speaking specifically within the context I intended when I made my point. 😛
Cassirer (or someone similar, if I recall correctly) might have called us a "symbolic animal." Aristotle would have used the term "zoon logon echon"—which, in a looser translation, means an animal capable of speech—or perhaps "zoon politikon," our social animal side.

But honestly, it all circles back to the same thing eventually. Aside from that Levi reference, which wasn't really what I was aiming for anyway—but that’s a whole different conversation... I actually posed some questions regarding that Levi definition over in the "What's the point of spirituality? We have capitalism" thread... It ties right into your discussion about rituals, too. You might find yourself getting sucked into that one as well...

So, why is a human being considered more spiritual than an animal? For me, it comes down to the fact that we possess language as we know it—including the physical ability to articulate sounds thanks to our specific anatomy, something monkeys, for instance, lack (though I’m always a bit skeptical about the idea that they might possess something significantly *more*, rather than just something different). Because of language, we can "transmit information," allowing us to build and pass down culture, or even create "memes"—which is such a trendy term now that even those cute little sociobiologists get their moment in the sun. Other animals just can't do that. At least, not that we know of... But I will say this: a human being isn't a purely natural creature. Not unless you count "culture" as a natural upgrade, and even then, that feels like a bit of a sophism or just silly wordplay. We all know what people mean when they distinguish between "nature" and "culture," or that famous old debate of nature versus nurture.

I believe the fundamental flaw in modern spirituality is how people cherry-pick elements from various traditions just to suit their own whims. They craft this personalized spiritual cocktail to make it easier to keep doing exactly what they’ve always done. Essentially, they focus on treating the symptoms caused by a lack of true spirituality without ever touching the core—they never actually change who they are at the center. When life gets messy, it’s always someone else's fault; the environment is "evil" or "toxic," and they use spirituality as a convenient excuse for their own behavior. If everyone starts viewing themselves as their own god, then everyone else becomes nothing more than an object. Now, I’m not saying this applies to everyone. There are those who sincerely seek spirituality—which, to me, means striving to be better people, shedding hatred, envy, and malice... I think those souls will find fertile ground.
It honestly saddens me how everything is constantly masked in mysticism, wrapped up in being "secret" or "incomprehensible" through special techniques and methods, when true spirituality is actually about simplicity. There is no such thing as "instant spirituality." It is an exhilarating process of growth in understanding and humanity. There is no point in trying to play God; it is enough to simply strive to be a truly authentic human being. I

and I know this because I see my own hypocrisy: I can talk about spiritual matters beautifully, making everything sound wonderful, only to turn cold or irritable toward the very people who need me most. If I could just be kind to those who need it, that would be enough for me.

Megan Nguyen22 said:I believe the fundamental flaw in modern spirituality is how people cherry-pick elements from various traditions just to suit their own whims. They craft this personalized spiritual cocktail to make it easier to keep doing exactly what they’ve always done. Essentially, they focus on treating the symptoms caused by a lack of true spirituality without ever touching the core—they never actually change who they are at the center. When life gets messy, it’s always someone else's fault; the environment is "evil" or "toxic," and they use spirituality as a convenient excuse for their own behavior. If everyone starts viewing themselves as their own god, then everyone else becomes nothing more than an object. Now, I’m not saying this applies to everyone. There are those who sincerely seek spirituality—which, to me, means striving to be better people, shedding hatred, envy, and malice... I think those souls will find fertile ground.
It honestly saddens me how everything is constantly masked in mysticism, wrapped up in being "secret" or "incomprehensible" through special techniques and methods, when true spirituality is actually about simplicity. There is no such thing as "instant spirituality." It is an exhilarating process of growth in understanding and humanity. There is no point in trying to play God; it is enough to simply strive to be a truly authentic human being. I

and I know this because I see my own hypocrisy: I can talk about spiritual matters beautifully, making everything sound wonderful, only to turn cold or irritable toward the very people who need me most. If I could just be kind to those who need it, that would be enough for me.

WildFox is WiseFox (it is more appropriate)!
🙂

PS.
I get the feeling we’re all starting to think along similar lines... regardless of all the different beliefs we use to clutter our heads.

Spirituality at its absolute best!

Relativism has essentially become the new face of totalitarianism because reality itself has morphed into a simulation. We’ve reached a point where the sign has lost its "true" (or even its "primary") connection to actual existence. Instead, signs just shuffle around combinatorically—moving through simulations and symbols in a relativistic loop—without any obligation to represent a tangible truth. You can't fight this brand of relativism with freedom, because this entire mess actually grew out of the concept of freedom itself. You can't combat it by clinging to old standards either, since relativism has already branded those criteria as primitive. In fact, you can't even kill relativism with death, because relativism is effectively death in its own right: it levels all values and brings every function to a standstill. Ultimately, the only way to push back is by forging entirely new values—though one has to wonder, what truly constitutes a value once relativism has labeled them all as obsolete? These new values would have to exist on a higher plane than this totalitarian relativism.

Megan Nguyen22 said:I believe the fundamental flaw in modern spirituality is how people cherry-pick elements from various traditions just to suit their own whims. They craft this personalized spiritual cocktail to make it easier to keep doing exactly what they’ve always done. Essentially, they focus on treating the symptoms caused by a lack of true spirituality without ever touching the core—they never actually change who they are at the center. When life gets messy, it’s always someone else's fault; the environment is "evil" or "toxic," and they use spirituality as a convenient excuse for their own behavior. If everyone starts viewing themselves as their own god, then everyone else becomes nothing more than an object. Now, I’m not saying this applies to everyone. There are those who sincerely seek spirituality—which, to me, means striving to be better people, shedding hatred, envy, and malice... I think those souls will find fertile ground.
It honestly saddens me how everything is constantly masked in mysticism, wrapped up in being "secret" or "incomprehensible" through special techniques and methods, when true spirituality is actually about simplicity. There is no such thing as "instant spirituality." It is an exhilarating process of growth in understanding and humanity. There is no point in trying to play God; it is enough to simply strive to be a truly authentic human being. I

and I know this because I see my own hypocrisy: I can talk about spiritual matters beautifully, making everything sound wonderful, only to turn cold or irritable toward the very people who need me most. If I could just be kind to those who need it, that would be enough for me.

Those who pay back evil with good... I suppose they are my enemies; because, well, I try to follow what is good.
Psalm 38:20

False witnesses have risen up against me, accusing me of things I haven't even done.
They repaid my goodness with evil, seemingly just to bring about the ruin of my soul.
Psalm 35:11,12

Suppose King David truly aspired to be a better man. I mean, he didn't exactly want to pay evil with evil, though he certainly had to endure the things that were done to him. But even then, he never really embraced that whole "turn the other cheek" philosophy, nor did he follow that idea of hitting back harder when someone wrongs you. Not that it matters much, I guess. But my thought is, the moment he decided not to return evil in kind—rejecting that old "eye for an eye" mentality—it suggests he just bore it all in silence. It implies he was a spiritual person. Maybe.

I suppose I've been wondering lately... if someone keeps doing good for others, even when they're being paid with pure evil, does that make them a fool? Maybe. I guess it’s hard to say for sure without knowing the heart behind it. It feels like such a complicated question, really.

I suppose I should say that this whole idea of relativism doesn't actually exist in any real sense... maybe. I mean, we all face the exact same choices, regardless of whatever specific spiritual path or religious practice someone decides to follow. It feels like that to me, anyway. We can sense when someone is doing us good or if they are being evil, even if some philosopher argues that good and evil aren't even real things—you know, claiming everything is just subjective or relative. But the feeling remains, I guess.

Returning good for good... well, I suppose that isn't exactly profound wisdom. It’s just what everyone does—gangs, the mob, crooked relatives, cronies, and all those other shady characters you see in closed-off cults. It feels almost too simple, I guess. If we respond to evil with more evil, then maybe we aren't actually any different from the people causing us harm; we're just matching their level of spirituality, or lack thereof. Perhaps the real path lies elsewhere. Maybe it's about returning kindness even when faced with malice, or simply enduring the hardship and trying, quite earnestly, to become a better person through it all.

If we decide to go all in from the start—you know, by adopting this completely open, tolerant stance toward everyone—we eventually run right into that situation described in the Bible. It’s like what David was talking about regarding false witnesses and those who repay evil with good. If we take that path, they’re going to bleed us dry. I guess... maybe it's because they see our tolerance as a sign of being fools. They basically want to bait us into retaliating, forcing us to start paying evil with evil. It feels like a trap designed to pull us into a cycle of evil, or at the very least, to leave us with no choice but to just sit there and suffer through it.

I suppose someone who is trying to ascend in spirituality—trying, you know, to actually become a better person—might find themselves suddenly feeling too weak or incapable of doing any real good on their own. It’s a heavy thing. So, they might think, maybe it would be easier to do good if they joined some organized group or followed a traditional religion. But then... well, there's a catch. By joining, they end up limiting their openness to all sorts of outside influences. They basically narrow their focus to just returning kindness for kindness within that specific circle. They aren't really doing much more for the world at large, other than making their own lives feel a bit smoother and easier. And this is where it gets messy. Someone could easily end up agreeing to be a false witness against an opponent just to show love to the people who were kind to them. In those moments, I guess you could say they become exactly what people describe: a false witness, or someone who returns good for evil. Because, ultimately, the priority shifts from what is truly right to tribalism—it becomes about settling scores between clans and backing your own side, rather than focusing on what is actually good.

I suppose... if one truly follows the path of absolute Good, they are essentially always alone. They only ever have the company of that very Good they are pursuing, which requires opening oneself up as much as possible to every kind of influence. It isn't really about focusing on one's own suffering, I guess, or obsessing over the presence of evil and how toxic the world seems to be. Instead, the focus remains on the Good itself—and perhaps that is the only way to avoid falling prey to it, or being swept up by evil. If we assume—and this is just a thought—that someone like an atheist or a New Ager could experience this kind of Good, then maybe they could be just as spiritual as any traditional believer. In that case, I think we could say that their own high level of spirituality and wisdom helps them survive the onslaught of evil, much like how God helps a believer through the same struggles.

silentnomad23 said:Relativism has essentially become the new face of totalitarianism because reality itself has morphed into a simulation. We’ve reached a point where the sign has lost its "true" (or even its "primary") connection to actual existence. Instead, signs just shuffle around combinatorically—moving through simulations and symbols in a relativistic loop—without any obligation to represent a tangible truth. You can't fight this brand of relativism with freedom, because this entire mess actually grew out of the concept of freedom itself. You can't combat it by clinging to old standards either, since relativism has already branded those criteria as primitive. In fact, you can't even kill relativism with death, because relativism is effectively death in its own right: it levels all values and brings every function to a standstill. Ultimately, the only way to push back is by forging entirely new values—though one has to wonder, what truly constitutes a value once relativism has labeled them all as obsolete? These new values would have to exist on a higher plane than this totalitarian relativism.

That is why the Bible says:

I wish you were either hot or cold! But because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth.

It is the freedom of nonsense, or perhaps just senseless freedom. It is the freedom to merely *exist*, rather than to truly *be*. Freedom should exist so that one can become something, not to renounce being altogether (which is just death). That is why in the EU, they talk about a "pluralism of differences" instead of true "equality," but in the end, everything just collapses back into relativism and uniformity. It’s like how every year a budget is drawn up, which is then distributed based on set criteria, aiming to improve—relatively speaking—the welfare in areas lagging behind the average. Of course, there is plenty of corruption involved, and for the "presidents" of that Union, they choose these faceless bureaucrats whose job is basically to pacify "the wolves in sheep's clothing"—those powerful lobbies and elites who rule from the shadows.

Maybe the only way to fight relativism is through integrity. Integrity is a value of a higher order than totalitarian relativism, which can perhaps serve as its foundation or background. So, I guess it means not giving up on your own choice—not because you are totally indoctrinated or primitive, but simply because it is yours, and yours alone.

dustyskipper3 said:That is why the Bible says:

I wish you were either hot or cold! But because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth.

It is the freedom of nonsense, or perhaps just senseless freedom. It is the freedom to merely *exist*, rather than to truly *be*. Freedom should exist so that one can become something, not to renounce being altogether (which is just death). That is why in the EU, they talk about a "pluralism of differences" instead of true "equality," but in the end, everything just collapses back into relativism and uniformity. It’s like how every year a budget is drawn up, which is then distributed based on set criteria, aiming to improve—relatively speaking—the welfare in areas lagging behind the average. Of course, there is plenty of corruption involved, and for the "presidents" of that Union, they choose these faceless bureaucrats whose job is basically to pacify "the wolves in sheep's clothing"—those powerful lobbies and elites who rule from the shadows.

Maybe the only way to fight relativism is through integrity. Integrity is a value of a higher order than totalitarian relativism, which can perhaps serve as its foundation or background. So, I guess it means not giving up on your own choice—not because you are totally indoctrinated or primitive, but simply because it is yours, and yours alone.

We are looking at a system built upon indeterminacy, which is effectively the death of any true definition. Even when such a system grants freedom to specific groups to express their identity, they often do so in a purely combinatorial way, trading one thing for another.

However, integrity existed long before relativism did. It underwent its own emancipation, which ironically caused it to become relative, and now it needs to reclaim its character. I don't mean this in terms of "-isms" (like individualism or pluralism), nor do I mean returning to the old way of defining things through a mere accumulation of meaning. Rather, I mean a subject that has been "enriched" by the experience of both cumulative and relative truths; a subject that is actually capable of embracing relativism if they truly choose to.

In the past, cumulative integrity was bolstered by capital, creating a sort of "surplus" (including a surplus of meaning). Similarly, our current version of relative integrity is tied to neoliberal capitalism, which has led to its own kind of "slippery," fictitious value.

silentnomad23 said:Relativism has essentially become the new face of totalitarianism because reality itself has morphed into a simulation. We’ve reached a point where the sign has lost its "true" (or even its "primary") connection to actual existence. Instead, signs just shuffle around combinatorically—moving through simulations and symbols in a relativistic loop—without any obligation to represent a tangible truth. You can't fight this brand of relativism with freedom, because this entire mess actually grew out of the concept of freedom itself. You can't combat it by clinging to old standards either, since relativism has already branded those criteria as primitive. In fact, you can't even kill relativism with death, because relativism is effectively death in its own right: it levels all values and brings every function to a standstill. Ultimately, the only way to push back is by forging entirely new values—though one has to wonder, what truly constitutes a value once relativism has labeled them all as obsolete? These new values would have to exist on a higher plane than this totalitarian relativism.

Your entire post is packed with valuable insights.
(Relativism is essentially death, which is quite a powerful point, for example.)

But that one specific sentence I pulled out feels like a shaky premise to me
from which all sorts of illogical conclusions sprout.
It’s pretty obvious that relativism didn't "expose" old standards as primitive, nor did it move past them. (It might have done that for some things, but certainly not for the classics😉.) Instead, it just leveled the playing field, turning everyone into spiritual proletarians.

However, a classic remains a classic, no matter what.😉
An elite is an elite.
And a genius is a genius.
--

The real question is: how do we actually overcome that kind of death—that relativism?
How do we outsmart it?
What’s the move here—hey, you younger guys?
===

I’d like to boldly offer a solution.🙂

Cowardice asks: "Is it safe?"
Pragmatism asks: "Is it reasonable?"
Vanity asks: "Is it popular?"
Politics asks: "Is it useful?"
Science asks: "Is it measurable?"
A philosopher asks—and keeps asking and asking and asking *ad infinitum*.
While the "enlightened relativist,"
that master slacker, doesn't even bother asking; they just shrug and say everything is the same, so nothing matters.

Only conscience asks: "Is it right?"🙂

There comes a moment when a person has to make a move that isn't certain,
isn't reasonable, isn't popular, isn't useful, isn't measurable, isn't philosophical, and isn't relativistic...
and yet, you have to make it because it is

RIGHT.😉

hiddenpuma75 said:Your entire post is packed with valuable insights.
(Relativism is essentially death, which is quite a powerful point, for example.)

But that one specific sentence I pulled out feels like a shaky premise to me
from which all sorts of illogical conclusions sprout.
It’s pretty obvious that relativism didn't "expose" old standards as primitive, nor did it move past them. (It might have done that for some things, but certainly not for the classics😉.) Instead, it just leveled the playing field, turning everyone into spiritual proletarians.

However, a classic remains a classic, no matter what.😉
An elite is an elite.
And a genius is a genius.
--

The real question is: how do we actually overcome that kind of death—that relativism?
How do we outsmart it?
What’s the move here—hey, you younger guys?
===

I’d like to boldly offer a solution.🙂

Cowardice asks: "Is it safe?"
Pragmatism asks: "Is it reasonable?"
Vanity asks: "Is it popular?"
Politics asks: "Is it useful?"
Science asks: "Is it measurable?"
A philosopher asks—and keeps asking and asking and asking *ad infinitum*.
While the "enlightened relativist,"
that master slacker, doesn't even bother asking; they just shrug and say everything is the same, so nothing matters.

Only conscience asks: "Is it right?"🙂

There comes a moment when a person has to make a move that isn't certain,
isn't reasonable, isn't popular, isn't useful, isn't measurable, isn't philosophical, and isn't relativistic...
and yet, you have to make it because it is

RIGHT.😉

A classic is simply a class.
And a genius is a genius, regardless of their class.

Cowardice asks—Is it safe?
Expediency asks—Is it reasonable?
Vanity asks—Is it popular?
Politics asks—Is it useful?
Science asks—Is it measurable?
A philosopher asks—and asks, and asks, and asks *ad infinitum*
The "enlightened relativist," a
lazy master, doesn't even ask; they just declare that everything is equal, so everything is irrelevant.

Only conscience asks—Is it right?🙂

There comes a moment when a person must make a move that isn't safe,
nor reasonable, nor popular, nor useful, nor measurable, nor philosophical, nor relativizing...
and yet, they must pull the trigger because it is

RIGHT. 😉

True, but they don't know if it's right (otherwise, there would be no risk involved).

mistyscout2 said:Well, if that's what he would have said, then fine. But I was speaking specifically within the context I intended when I made my point. 😛
Cassirer (or someone similar, if I recall correctly) might have called us a "symbolic animal." Aristotle would have used the term "zoon logon echon"—which, in a looser translation, means an animal capable of speech—or perhaps "zoon politikon," our social animal side.

But honestly, it all circles back to the same thing eventually. Aside from that Levi reference, which wasn't really what I was aiming for anyway—but that’s a whole different conversation... I actually posed some questions regarding that Levi definition over in the "What's the point of spirituality? We have capitalism" thread... It ties right into your discussion about rituals, too. You might find yourself getting sucked into that one as well...

So, why is a human being considered more spiritual than an animal? For me, it comes down to the fact that we possess language as we know it—including the physical ability to articulate sounds thanks to our specific anatomy, something monkeys, for instance, lack (though I’m always a bit skeptical about the idea that they might possess something significantly *more*, rather than just something different). Because of language, we can "transmit information," allowing us to build and pass down culture, or even create "memes"—which is such a trendy term now that even those cute little sociobiologists get their moment in the sun. Other animals just can't do that. At least, not that we know of... But I will say this: a human being isn't a purely natural creature. Not unless you count "culture" as a natural upgrade, and even then, that feels like a bit of a sophism or just silly wordplay. We all know what people mean when they distinguish between "nature" and "culture," or that famous old debate of nature versus nurture.

Maybe we could switch things up for once and actually deal with some hard facts—you know, the kind of stuff anyone who survived a basic elementary biology class should already have tucked away in their brain. It’s an absolute, undeniable fact that humans are animals, plain and simple. So, honestly, talking about "humans versus animals" is just total nonsense. It’s the same ridiculous logic as people separating "humans from monkeys," when at the end of the day, we are just apes. Period.

So, I was just sitting here thinking about what Richard Dawkins was getting at in that "The Fifth Avenue" video... you know, that whole deep dive into how we became who we are? It’s wild when you really sit with it.I can't actually watch videos directly through links, so if you want me to dive into whatever madness is happening in that clip, you're gonna have to give me the gist of it first. Just lay out what’s going down—the arguments, the people involved, the whole chaotic scene—and I'll get to work on it. Once I know what we're dealing with, I'll spin it into something worth reading."Look, let's get one thing straight: humans don't actually hold some divine throne over the animal kingdom. We aren't some separate, superior species looking down from above; we’re just animals ourselves, plain and simple. We're basically just The Fifth Avenue."

It’s honestly such a load of crap to claim that other animals don't develop cultures; I mean, look at chimpanzees, they're out there doing it all the time. People love to lean on that tired old argument that humans are just "smarter" because our brains are bigger than, say, a chimp's, but if we're playing by that logic, then whales are technically smarter than us since their brains are massive compared to ours—though, hey, I guess we won't truly know for sure until someone actually does the deep-dive research on that. Of course, the immediate knee-jerk reaction from everyone is to point at our tech and civilization like it's some kind of ultimate proof of superiority. But honestly? It isn't. If we didn't have functional hands and fingers, none of this would exist; period. Even if we had them, if we were stuck living under the ocean instead of on land, we wouldn't have built a damn thing beyond maybe some crude stone tools, because you can't exactly smelt metal without fire, and let's face it, fire and the ocean don't exactly get along.

When you listen to people spout that kind of nonsense, it’s easy to fall for the trap of thinking every single human being on this planet possesses some sort of god-tier capability that no other animal could ever touch. But let's be real—that is a total load of crap. If we’re looking at any objective metric, plenty of non-human animals are operating at a significantly higher intellectual level than a huge chunk of the human population, specifically those dealing with severe cognitive impairments. We’re talking about chimps and gorillas that can actually learn sign language and pass standardized intelligence tests, whereas for a lot of people, even that basic stuff is out of reach. So, what’s the logic there? Are we really going to claim those specific people possess spirituality while the chimps and gorillas—who are clearly outperforming them by every measurable standard—don't? It just doesn't hold up.