RE: Are We Really Living Our Own Lives?
I put spiritual in quotes because its so ambiguous, but I could. I'm not sure you're actually interested though give then tone of your argument. "Spiritual" = moral. "Spirituality" = morality. "Spiritually" = morally". Anyone who believes they can be "spiritual" (whatever that means to them) while doing harm, is a fool. I don't care about any of the other definitions as they are based in belief.
You can say everyone in humanity is concerned with truth and morality, passively, by default. Not actively to learn and understand it more and figure out what is wrong around us so that the quality and condition of our lives can be improved.
You also attempt to denigrate the meaning of the post by associating alchemy and whatever you think "spirituality" means as hogwash without any substantive meaning in reality. I used the terms in quotes, did that allude your understanding of why I quoted them? I can't be repeating every single definition from previous work in all new work.
Most people don't care about truth or morality, actively, and simply passively think they already have what they need, and don't go out seeking it. I know this, because I live around people. I try to get people to care for truth and actively learn. Zip. "They know it all" is how they act, not me, lol, how silly of you to think the opposite. I recognize I need to learn, and do so, while others don't want to. Again this demonstrates your general attitude. You already viewed me poorly from not understanding words I used, and then proceeded with your attack. Nice try. Have good one. Peace.
Let's ignore tone shall we? I specifically asked about what "spirituality"means to you, because everyone seems to give it different meanings. So, spirituality is equivalent to morality - that's your definition? I do wonder why you didn't just use the word morality though, if that's what you meant? So reading your first paragraph, you are saying that anybody who has a moral code that permits harm does not in fact have a moral code....right? You further state that these non-moral codes can be dismissed as they are based on "belief".
The problem with this line of reasoning is that your position is an "Absolutist" moral philosophy, most commonly adopted by the religious, people of "faith" or in other words a "belief" system - the grounds you just dismissed your "non-moral" philosophies on.
These other philosophic positions that do permit harm ( in order to do the least harm to others, prevent even greater harm etc) are more of a "Stoic" position. This is the opposite of the "Absolutist"belief system you are advocating.
"You already viewed me poorly from not understanding words I used, and then proceeded with your attack. "
Excuse me, I have not attacked you and it would have been clearer had you said what you actually meant ie morality, rather than a word that can apparently mean anything anybody wants it to. Peace to you too.