Is spirituality evolving?

Scott Brown6 said:Are we talking about socially acceptable norms here? In Iran, if I recall correctly, chess is banned because it's viewed as "evil"—and since women can't see male doctors, they're stuck just describing symptoms to a man. Basically, social norms are built on whatever specific society decides is right or wrong at the time. What's considered wicked in one culture is totally fine in another. Though, yeah, those are pretty extreme examples. It sounds like you're leaning toward some kind of anarchy—just acting on pure instinct and calling it all "good." Or maybe I'm just misreading you again...
Good intentions aren't a guarantee of a good outcome, sure, but that doesn't mean they're useless. They're still necessary if you want to get anything right. 🙂

A slightly longer thought.

I am not advocating for anarchy. A serial killer needs to serve their sentence. We live in a society where people will label them as "evil" and punish them accordingly.

And I have nothing against society being exactly what it is. In fact, I think it *ought* to be that way.

But then, looking at it from another angle—take a serial killer, for instance. They are essentially just a "tool," or rather, they're operating in a state of unconsciousness—if that's even the right word—unaware of where their thoughts originate. People who obsess over the concepts of good versus evil won't actually help a serial killer if they need assistance while in prison. Or, they'll demand the death penalty out of a desire for vengeance. That whole concept of revenge is really just a byproduct of the good vs. evil dichotomy.

Personally, I suspect they aren't fundamentally evil—actually, I’d argue they are fundamentally good, they just don't know what they're doing—and they need help too.

Or consider a pop star trying to boost album sales by "doing good" through charitable donations. Or a religious person performing humanitarian work while thinking, "I'll go to heaven because of this," or "this will ensure a better reincarnation."

I don't think those things ever end well. Those people are slaves to various constructs, including those unfortunate notions of good and evil.

I believe human instinct is always inherently good—in alignment with nature. I mean, someone who isn't shackled by all these different concepts will always act rightly. You can never truly know what lies behind "good intentions"—most people have ulterior motives, I suppose. My view is that good deeds shouldn't involve the typical mental gymnastics people perform; you should just do good simply because of who you are, not because it fits the definition of "good."

That’s why I maintain that good and evil don't exist—there is only what *is*, and what *is* is fundamentally good.

Sophia Parker8 said:Control over what, exactly? How does the mind exert any authority when it is constantly being throttled by mere matter? Does the mind rule through empty platitudes about its own omnipotence?
I find the notion that overcoming matter is easier than conquering the psyche to be quite flawed. The psyche is only problematic because of our inherent human indulgence, whereas matter itself is stubbornly rigid. It doesn't resist out of spite, but out of pure inertia. And ignorance is arguably the hardest thing to overcome—as we see evidenced by countless examples right here on this forum.

Just try forcing yourself to do something that isn't part of your daily routine! Easy, right?
Now, try actually creating something—any kind of art, a sketch, tearing something apart, starting a fire... much harder, isn't it?

Controlling the material realm is actually quite straightforward—it's essentially applied mathematics; it follows laws that are predictable and clearly defined. But the psyche? It's "armed" with emotions, fragmented personalities, the subconscious, and more... it doesn't follow those same neat, predictable rules. It's driven by instinct and is completely fluid...
As you pointed out, ignorance and limitation are things we encounter at every single turn...

jademarlin26 said:Understood. Though I fail to see why one can't be introspective while actually moving through life. One doesn't need to retreat into isolation to achieve that. IMO 🙂

Trying to juggle two major things at once? If you've mastered that, more power to you, but I highly doubt anyone can do both with any real depth... personally, I still believe a person needs to be much more inward-facing when it comes to this whole thing...

I think multitasking is perfectly normal.
And I definitely disagree that doing things outside of tradition is difficult. I do it all the time.
Honestly, I feel like you’re being influenced a bit too much by Gurdjieff. He was always repeating those ideas, convincing his students they couldn't do something just because he told them so.

Controlling matter is impossible. Particles follow their own laws; when you work with matter, you’re really just pitting one substance against another—using a diamond to scratch steel, or using heat to break down rigid structures...
But nobody manages matter at a fundamental level, like at the statistical level. You can't exactly coax particles into locally breaking the rules of statistics just to make them act collectively how you want.
That would be magic. And I don't mean the "magic" of self-suggestion, self-help, delusion, or meditation. Those are just ways to build strength. It's like a marathon runner going to a gym. Their goal isn't to work out in the gym; it's to run the marathon.

driftingraven122: I believe there is such a thing as an absolute in both morality and ethics. So many people here love to throw around the word "absolute," yet everything else becomes relative to them.

I suppose I agree that some form of absolute exists within morality and ethics—though I suspect it isn't exactly glaringly obvious at first glance. It seems most people—and by that, I mean the crowd I usually run into, those who don't pursue what we might call spirituality, including much of the so-called religious population—fail to recognize it, opting instead to mistake it for something else entirely.

Sophia Lee80 said:Good and evil are mere constructs of society; they don't actually exist in nature. What does exist are correct and incorrect decisions. It’s all about experience. There is no objective good or evil, only the lessons we harvest from the choices we make—whether they were right or wrong.

What makes you say that? And why do you think humanity "invented" the concepts of good and evil in the first place?

Richard Torres2 said:Trying to juggle two major things at once? If you've mastered that, more power to you, but I highly doubt anyone can do both with any real depth... personally, I still believe a person needs to be much more inward-facing when it comes to this whole thing...

People juggle multiple tasks constantly without giving them even a moment of thought.

hiddencyclist9 said:I think multitasking is perfectly normal.
And I definitely disagree that doing things outside of tradition is difficult. I do it all the time.
Honestly, I feel like you’re being influenced a bit too much by Gurdjieff. He was always repeating those ideas, convincing his students they couldn't do something just because he told them so.

Controlling matter is impossible. Particles follow their own laws; when you work with matter, you’re really just pitting one substance against another—using a diamond to scratch steel, or using heat to break down rigid structures...
But nobody manages matter at a fundamental level, like at the statistical level. You can't exactly coax particles into locally breaking the rules of statistics just to make them act collectively how you want.
That would be magic. And I don't mean the "magic" of self-suggestion, self-help, delusion, or meditation. Those are just ways to build strength. It's like a marathon runner going to a gym. Their goal isn't to work out in the gym; it's to run the marathon.

driftingraven122: I believe there is such a thing as an absolute in both morality and ethics. So many people here love to throw around the word "absolute," yet everything else becomes relative to them.

Well, since we've brought up the marathoner and the race—try finding a single marathon runner who will tell you their journey was easy. They don't exist. And this claim of yours—that you perform difficult tasks every day without any trouble, treating them as if they were just "normal"—well, that simply cannot be true. If truly difficult things were easy, the world would progress toward better things at lightning speed, and we wouldn't have wars breaking out over stupid misunderstandings. Hard things are hard to start because, more often than not, we have to conquer our own nature to get them done—and that is anything but easy. You're kidding yourself if you think you're doing hard things easily; either they aren't actually hard, or you're just engaging in some serious self-delusion...

jademarlin26 said:People juggle multiple tasks constantly without giving them even a moment of thought.

I'd be surprised if they managed to pull off even two meaningful tasks at the same time...

Richard Torres2 said:I'd be surprised if they managed to pull off even two meaningful tasks at the same time...

And how exactly do you define "coherent"?

driftingraven122 said:A slightly longer thought.

I am not advocating for anarchy. A serial killer needs to serve their sentence. We live in a society where people will label them as "evil" and punish them accordingly.

And I have nothing against society being exactly what it is. In fact, I think it *ought* to be that way.

But then, looking at it from another angle—take a serial killer, for instance. They are essentially just a "tool," or rather, they're operating in a state of unconsciousness—if that's even the right word—unaware of where their thoughts originate. People who obsess over the concepts of good versus evil won't actually help a serial killer if they need assistance while in prison. Or, they'll demand the death penalty out of a desire for vengeance. That whole concept of revenge is really just a byproduct of the good vs. evil dichotomy.

Personally, I suspect they aren't fundamentally evil—actually, I’d argue they are fundamentally good, they just don't know what they're doing—and they need help too.

Or consider a pop star trying to boost album sales by "doing good" through charitable donations. Or a religious person performing humanitarian work while thinking, "I'll go to heaven because of this," or "this will ensure a better reincarnation."

I don't think those things ever end well. Those people are slaves to various constructs, including those unfortunate notions of good and evil.

I believe human instinct is always inherently good—in alignment with nature. I mean, someone who isn't shackled by all these different concepts will always act rightly. You can never truly know what lies behind "good intentions"—most people have ulterior motives, I suppose. My view is that good deeds shouldn't involve the typical mental gymnastics people perform; you should just do good simply because of who you are, not because it fits the definition of "good."

That’s why I maintain that good and evil don't exist—there is only what *is*, and what *is* is fundamentally good.

Alright, driftingraven122, now you're putting 'good intentions' in quotes... look, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, I'll give you that. But surely you'll admit that actual, genuine good intentions exist.🙂 Like, if you intend to plant a flower, so you go ahead and plant it, and then it actually grows...

Scott Brown6 said:Alright, driftingraven122, now you're putting 'good intentions' in quotes... look, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, I'll give you that. But surely you'll admit that actual, genuine good intentions exist.🙂 Like, if you intend to plant a flower, so you go ahead and plant it, and then it actually grows...

Yes, well, I did say they exist. Intending to plant a seed just to watch something live and grow next to you—that's a good intention, I guess. My point is simply that most people aren't really aware that 'good intentions' aren't always as great as they seem at first glance.

driftingraven122 said:Yes, well, I did say they exist. Intending to plant a seed just to watch something live and grow next to you—that's a good intention, I guess. My point is simply that most people aren't really aware that 'good intentions' aren't always as great as they seem at first glance.

Facts.

Man didn't invent "good" versus "evil"; he just slapped the wrong labels on them. There is a right way and a wrong way to act, but that doesn't make one path inherently moral and the other immoral. It’s simply about whether a course of action is correct or incorrect. There is no inherent goodness or evil in the mechanics themselves.

What defines a "right" path versus a "wrong" one? Regarding the concept itself, I see no distinction between good/evil and right/wrong. In my view, there is only the idea of the path.

jademarlin26 said:What defines a "right" path versus a "wrong" one? Regarding the concept itself, I see no distinction between good/evil and right/wrong. In my view, there is only the idea of the path.

It feels like a hallmark of our modern era that we try to make everything relative. We haven't actually lost the ability to tell good from evil; we've just started choosing to ignore the difference entirely.

Well, they are relative to any individual, I suppose—though we should probably consider that most people tend to see them quite similarly.

The real questions, if you ask me, are these:

Is there such a thing as an absolute good that exists regardless of human thought?
Is there such a thing as an absolute evil that exists regardless of human thought?

Sophia Lee80 said:Man didn't invent "good" versus "evil"; he just slapped the wrong labels on them. There is a right way and a wrong way to act, but that doesn't make one path inherently moral and the other immoral. It’s simply about whether a course of action is correct or incorrect. There is no inherent goodness or evil in the mechanics themselves.

So, if those aren't the right names, what are? 🤔

Is spirituality actually evolving? Depends on how much you own yourself and who you even are at your core.

So, what do you even mean by spirituality—like some specific doctrine or creed? To me, spirituality isn't some "science" that's constantly evolving. It’s that thing outside of time and space... something you can't really wrap your head around, but everyone just *feels* that sense of infinite space/time and wants to bring it into their daily grind. So, who's actually "evolving"—spirituality itself, or just us individuals? Maybe real growth is just how many people can actually quiet their minds and live without all that unnecessary drama—so they end up with better relationships and just feel happier??!!!