Survival Spirituality

[spetsnaz]

To put it more succinctly; Spirituality will absolutely be an integral component of survival in a post-peak world.

The concept of spirituality can be threatening to the ideas of reality held by some, hence the dissuasive comments.

Many instantly associate spirituality with organized religion, which is a valid but narrow minded conclusion.

I use to believe that the worst was certain, that I would be a victim of modernity, that human societies inability to change had utterly doomed my future, my children's future and any aspirations I held sacred. I was consumed by my negative thinking, every facet of my life was complicated, I was hindered by constant thoughts of futility, for what was the the point of anything in the shadow of the apocalypse?

Then I was afflicted with a profound sense of spirituality after looking death in the eyes and realizing that death itself has no power, that it is simply another part of life. It also made me realize that the only things we have control of are our emotions and that events themselves have no affect on us but it is our perceptions of those events that affect us.

You can stockpile all the supplies you want but if you are not prepared spiritually for watching people you love die in unimaginable ways and are not ready to help others cope with such calamities, then you will not last long in the post-peak context.

[gylangirl]

I think you are referring to the difficulty of retaining some level of personal integrity and self respect and meaningfulness when everything around you literally goes to hell. Like golf, your true character comes out in adversity.

Only this will be adversity on crack.You'll have to have some very strong character to resist temptation... in order to die well.

Thou shalt not steal, nor covet thy neighbors goods, nor bear false witness, nor kill, etc:  Gonna be a tough test for most so-called 'religious' folks, praying in vain for a God to take this cup away from them.

[oliver.rochford]

There is a very successful alternative.

Letting the beast inside rule.

It's survival instinct pure.

ollie

[Chip Haynes]

So what your saying is that there's a real good chance I'll still have those people banging on my door after the oil crash, trying to give me religion?

Man, that blows the one thing I had to look forward to.

[podunkinak]

   This is an interesting topic. As a race we have not even been able to agree to a definition of spirituality, as indicated by the many religions and sects branching out from those religions. While religion does not by itself define spirituality it is an expession or an attempt by the masses to act upon it. Most people need something to believe in. For some it is science, for others it may be God of some form or another, or it may just be a belief in an event that can not be turned aside (Peak Oil). In all of the previously mentioned cases there is a common thread, to believe you must accept the truth of something without having found that knowledge personally. In all instances their is a measure of faith supported by a persons own observations and how they percieve the relation of each. We must believe what the prominent figures tell us or discover for ourselves what we may.

  Spirituallity leads to the belief in something greater than ones self. Often the survival of a people depends on the selfless acts of members within a given society. While this does not always ensure personal survival, it does make chances of success greater for the group in cases where an individual acting alone would be lost. The old saying " united we stand dived we fall " wasn't an outgrowth of rugged individualizm, but a group of people fighting for something they believed worth dying for.

  People, even in emergencies do not act on pure instinct. If that were true we would not have marines throwing themselves on a grenade to save their buddies. We also would not have small units of soldiers fighting to hold a position they could easilly abandon in order that others on the battle field could escape.

  When the beast inside is alloud to rule, it manifests itself as violent sociopathic behaivior or total indifference to the suffering of others. How many beasts on the plain plan or make preparations for their own survival. We are men and women who possess something more than do the worms in the earth.

  Spirituallity gives the human race an advantage over other species, and in many cases on group over another. To diminish or shrug off spirituallity is to reduce the chance of survival for yourself and those for whom you may be responsible.


  IMHO 

[Chip Haynes]

Oh, here: Let me throw a bucket of (possibly) pre-peak gas on this fire: If not from religion and spirituality, from where do we get our personal ethics and our individual nderstanding of right and wrong? How, without those markers, do we define what is good (Phaedrus)?

I am neither spiritual nor religious, but I do consider myself a good person and I do the right thing. But why?

And yeah, I'll give you bonus points for indentifying the sopurce of the "Phaedrus" reference.   

[Nicole]

Neither religion, nor spirituality nor Plato created our sense of right and wrong.  These are (often competing) versions of right and wrong, but without religion, culture would instill a sense of right and wrong in us.

The real source of human right and wrong is survival of self, group and species.  All else is cultural icing.

For example, almost any religion in the West will say that killing is wrong, but culture disagrees.  We find all sorts of acceptable killing.  War, preventable starvation, preventable disease, revenge or vengeance (death penalty), abortion and infanticide, self-defense and more.

All this goes to show is that our sense of "right and wrong" is pretty weak.  It's very variable.

[oliver.rochford]

Well said Nicole.

Think of it this way.

It is useful for survival not to kill each other.

- You can work together, increasing productivity or defense (offense) effectiveness
- You have someone to watch your back (you don't need to watch your own back so much)
- It often doesn't make sense to waste energy and risk injury killing someone

It is well observed that 'thou shall not kill' rarely extends to people from beyond the cultural/interest group of the person observing the rule, not to mention people lived together without violence well before organised religion.

It is obvious that many fundamentalists relate religion with morality, as according to their beliefs the earth is 6000 years old and man decended from adam and eve.

ollie

[Leaf]

It is useful for survival not to kill each other.

The issue will be trust....Their are going to be alot of dead people between point A and B
When it comes to the point of basic surviaval I imagine alot of people will be eliminated.Survival of the fittest....
I imagine about two years into oldovia it to be a mix between Day of the Dead and some other cheap low budget horror flick.

[Chip Haynes]

So I should buy popcorn now?

   Robert Aspirin, in his "Thievesworld" series, referred to "situational ethics"; that is, what's considered "right" for the moment. Not a bad approach, as the oil crash approaches.

[Nicole]

So I should buy popcorn now?

   Robert Aspirin, in his "Thievesworld" series, referred to "situational ethics"; that is, what's considered "right" for the moment. Not a bad approach, as the oil crash approaches.

Exactly. 

Or another example -- we pay lip service to how awful it is for children to be murdered, and yet turn a virtual blind eye to the astonishingly high rate of children killed by their own families.  If it were REALLY "wrong" and unacceptable, we'd at least attempt to do something about it instead of fang-less and haphazard Child Services departments.

Here's a scary chart (Source: CDC, 1997 figures):


(Sorry, couldn't find one that showed all causes instead of just death by firearms.)

[Chip Haynes]

The suicide rate in northern Ireland is truly depressing.

[podunkinak]

   

If not from religion and spirituality, from where do we get our personal ethics and our individual nderstanding of right and wrong? How, without those markers, do we define what is good (Phaedrus)?

   Good question? where do they come from without some apeal to spirituallity? Can you trace your sense of right and wrong to something other than the religious or spiritual traditions of your ancestors? What about feelings of love,hate, anxiety, fear and happiness? Haven't all of these been used in tandem with irrational ? wouldn't this imply that they do not originate in the intellect?

Neither religion, nor spirituality nor Plato created our sense of right and wrong.  These are (often competing) versions of right and wrong, but without religion, culture would instill a sense of right and wrong in us.

 So if this were true then we should have umong us (world community) a culture that has evolved a sence of morals, ethics or whatever you would like to call it, without some form of spirituallity. By this I mean some sense of what is right and wrong that has, when adhered to, lead to a thriving cultureof vitallity.   

 

It is well observed that 'thou shall not kill' rarely extends to people from beyond the cultural/interest group of the person observing the rule, not to mention people lived together without violence well before organized religion.

  Not true to any extent. People hardly need organized religion as an excuse to kill each other, now or in the past. Many cultures have been extinguished in the past by competing tribes without the benefit of organized religion. The native americans of north america had no organised religion or even a religion that was continuous for any great distance. They did kill each other though, that is unless of course you believe in the myth of the benevolent native. Those would be the dead ones. Also, spirituallity can exist quite well outside the constraints of organised religion.

 

   A sense of right  and wrong comes not from culture or religion but from within an individual. That is to say it is our spiritual conection to something greater that gives us a sense of right or wrong. Religion and law are manifestations of a people trying to find an outlet for the spirituallity that exists in each of us. The different religions of the world are most likely the result of cultural or environmental bias.

  Understanding the connection is not a prerequisite to feeling it , and it can be mistaken for something else. It can also be drowned out, esspecially in todays world where we have all manner of industrial preoccupation and entertainment that isolates us and competes for our attention.

  The motive of this conversation is not to convert any one to organized religion. It is ,however,an important topic in a post PO trama stricken world to understand the needs of those that go on surviving. As such it should not be denied or minimised.

 

   

 

 

[oliver.rochford]

Not true to any extent. People hardly need organized religion as an excuse to kill each other, now or in the past.

That's good, because I did not say that at any point.

He who can read has a clear distinct advantage

Reread this statment:

It is well observed that 'thou shall not kill' rarely extends to people from beyond the cultural/interest group of the person observing the rule

I said  that thou shall not kill is rarely applied to people outside of a religious group, thus arguing that religion does not actually infer true morality.

If you were truly religious/spiritual, you would not kill anyone, regardless of whether they share your faith/ethnicity/world view or whatever.

At no point whatsoever did I say that religion is the cause of all violence.

ollie

[podunkinak]

   If people actually lived by the principles of their various religions there would be a lot less killing. Unfourtunateley coruption takes its toll on everything. The weakness of any religion is the people that practice it. Odd as it may seem the people are also the strength.
Just a casual observation.

   The problem with religion is the corrupt individuals that creep into the organization. If they aren't stoped by the truely faithful then bad things start to happen.