To the Archives, to the Archives! About a year ago I participated in a discussion about the same subject in a very different Forum. I copy here the wall of text I produced somewhere in the first stage of the Conversation. The thread was called "Spiritual Disorganisation". Take it for what it's worth...

"Waw Nat**, it makes me happy that a casual remark of me can inspire such thoughts! And thoughts they are: a clear expression of what a concept "induced" to you, of what you associate with it, on a personal as well as a more general level. An exploration of a concept, that's my kinda stuff! I think it's largely a matter of definition, as usual with concepts. "Spirituality" may mean a completely different thing to you than it means to me, and thus something may be spiritual for you but not for me, merely by the fact that we handle different definitions or notions. Personally, I like the "Book of Nature" very much and I can have very spiritual experiences during a walk in the fields or in the woods (each individual tree is hugged "in the mind"). But what IS spirituality then to me? The following is not so much a definition as a hypothesis. I would see it as giving a special (subjective) significance to a great variety of objects, whether they are natural or artificial, whether they are material or mental. Spirituality resides in the possibility of the mind to give a special meaning to some of its own contents, whatever they may be. A bit like noticing a person in a crowd: one automatically focusses on one specific individual for one reason or another, even if it's just a sweet voice or a miniskirt. So spirituality is a phenomenon that can be explained psychologically, as a remedy for our need for structuring, for valuation, for hi?rarchy. One can experience spirituality in texts, in the words of the Master, in images, in gestures, in symbols, in everything in fact, as long as you make it that "special thing" that you need at that moment, as long as it becomes an axis of significance, a basis for structure, an explanation and a perspective. This brings me to the notion of organization. One could argue that spirituality is even the core element of organization, as our thoughts are organized around the object of spirituality, around what is considered really important or significant. Take traditional religion for instance: christian, muslim, whatever. A few facts, some legends, some texts and a mighty worldview is born, that makes its followers both blind and seeing, that makes them willing to give their lives, the very basis of their convictions. Einstein had a spiritual feeling about the universe, the focus of his great mind (he often used the term "Gott" in his expressions). Many of us give a special meaning to Love (whatever th?t may be) and experience it spiritually, etc. etc. So spirituality is both very normal, general, human and various in content, and is more a psychological reflex than a handshake of God. Many people have a spiritual relationship to God, but doesn't he also has a core explanatory role? As I said: just a hypothesis. Any reaction, Nat?"

Yes he/she had, and it became all very interesting! Hope I can cite a few answers that were better ;-)

Wondering what is wrong with this thread. Why doesn't it "start-up"? Seems a darn good question though. Oh well...

Well we had our discussion and I did my best to help out.

It seems that his biggest issue is that he has grown up his whole life in religion and has learned to hate it. Unfortunately, he still feels that draw to something more than himself. Something supernatural which seems to contrl his fate.

Our conversation took the turn into my views on fate and coincidence and the importance of choice and responsibility.

We are going to talk again soon and hopefully get some better conversation in. I was busy with some other matters at the time so I only had a limited amount of time to deal with this.

I grew up in a very religious family and since my conversion to atheism and then agnosticism I have had some good religious discussions with them both defending my agnosticism and relating it to questions of spiritualism.

Firstly, to me spiritualism is a link between the individual and what immaterial entities and forces that are real. The most important thing to draw from this is that spiritual experience is inherently and totally subjective and as such cannot be confirmed as any other knowledge might be. Therefore, he is completely correct in his assessment of organized religion: Spirituality, by the very nature I have laid out, cannot be organized. It is impossible for one person to share another's spirituality, they may coincide, but they cannot by objective between the two. It also means that you will be completely inept in the role as spiritual authority or advisor.

On the other hand, that does not mean that you cannot be a capable advisor or authority on the material (personal) end of things. The same quality that prohibits the typical form of organized religion also enables one to be unquestionable about his or her beliefs. The one prerequisite is honesty to oneself. If one is honest to oneself, he or she can learn and know from spiritual experience. This means that one must be completely self-contained and accepting no spiritual authority (acknowledging that authority cannot be granted).

Your friend should feel free to explore his desires, even in the face of reason (show me a god that is corralled by reason!), even to the point that he believes what he wants to believe, as long as he believes for the sake of spirituality alone and not for ulterior material motives.

Even if he is wrong about his beliefs, and there is no spiritual existence to speak of, he can rest easy in the fact that he merely satisfied those natural and basic material wants that make him a person.

In the thread I mentioned above we were soon discovering some key concepts in this matter. It's unfortunate that I cannot copy the answers of the other participants without their permission here. And unfortunately most of them are out of sight now (yet not out of mind). I therefore take the liberty to copy another giant waffle of myself. It may contain a few things worthy of further investigation...

"At first sight we have three core concepts here, that we need to discuss and (tentatively) define. Of course I'm only exploring, still blind, using my nose and my fingertips. First there is spirituality, a difficult concept but excellently circumscribed by N** (I love his/her way of circumscribing complex concepts with multiple associated attributes). Having a spiritual experience feels indeed like an experience of beauty but that may be only the physical side of it (the goose-pocks, the adrenalin...). But something wholly different is happening than during a spiritual experience. In the case of an aesthetic experience the whole thing is momentanous, limited by the object and by the circumstances, and not necessarily "significant" on a larger scale; a beautiful sight is enjoyed but is often soon forgotten (until the next attractive girl ;-) ). Spirituality lies in discovering the important, the significant: when you have a spiritual experience you feel your mind turning like a wheel, and the world with it. It involves much more the mind than the eyes. It is like an earthquake high on the Richter scale; something important has been said, a fundamental lesson has been learned. Objects impossible to perceive as beautiful can lead to a spiritual experience, even objects created by your own mind (are there any others?). When you have a spiritual experience you are shuttered and changed and you built forth on it, and sometimes you keep building. You start with the initial experience and it feels so great that you have to talk about it, that you have to show it to others, convince them... and you end up in religion! Religion is a spiritual experience condensed and frozen, an image without a soul, a lesser avatar. As W** pointed out, religion is indeed compatible with rationality and with the written word; it is best expressed by the Text, sacred itself by some osmosis from its content (cf. the strange phenomenon of Jewish bibliolatria). But as N** would point out religion can also lead to rigidity, to dogmatism, to intolerance (not with W**, he's really too nice a guy ;-) ). A story to clarify this: the myth of Moses seeing the Burning Bush (probably just cranberries). The bush is not only perceived as God, declaring Divine Truths ("I Am the One who Is": one of the many translations), it also leads to one of the weirdest stories of the Old Testament, becoming part of western orthodoxy. Throughout the history of every religion one has been trying to return to the original inspiration, often felt as heresy by the orthodox and yet called "spirituality" by the many who practised it. One last approach: the aesthetic and the spiritual are both largely "subjective", personal, common as a potential but incredibly various in experience. While religions tend to be "objective", trying to argue and proove and talking about "external" things, especially the Being of God and the rules of morality. Spirituality opens you up while religion narrows you down. And God, oh my God, there He Is again (mind the caps)! We really must talk about Her.."

In Psychology the term trans-personal psychology has come to be a euphamism for spirituality. So your intro is a pretty good one.

Its about transcending personal ego, where one makes a sacrafice, or gives up some personal desire for the greater good. ('God')

It has everything to do with ethics, parenting and environmentalism, and such. People eventually realize that if they pursue their own interests to their logical conclusion, they will invoke the anger of others. Many of us grow up with ideals that 'theft is wrong', but many others do not. (See Zimbabwe)

Capitalist atheism is actually self destructive for society, as there is no reason to care for others, 'so long as you don't get caught', so the ego-self just corrupts the legal system to allow for its irrepressible mores. But as more and more follow this path, the society reaches a point of no return and the nation collapses.

This is when there is a sudden realization that this 'should never happen again'...

... until the next Godless generation take centre stage.

Your freind is feeling that something is not kosher with capitalist atheism, he senses the potential destruction of the world as we know it (in the West) is on the horizon.

For example : which would be a better way to stimulate an economy? :

A) pump more cash into it
B) be more efficient and productive

What strikes me in many postings on this site is the continuous confusion of the Individual and the Personal. The personal is the particularisation of the individual. It is for example my accent, the length of my nose, the dream I had tonight, my fear of spiders etc. It is just one specific feature of one specific person and as such it can be peculiar but it is often too insignificant to be a subject for investigation. The individual on the other hand is the formal generalisation of everything that is personal. It is all personal characteristics, stories and experiences put together and investigated in what they have in common, being precisely that "uncommon" and personal aspect. IMHO the personal is mostly irrelevant while the individual touches us all. It is me versus "the ego". Beyond both aspects there is the "objective" investigation, not focussing on the person but on the object itself. Consider the following sentences:

-I dreamt of King Albert tonight (so what? Personal).

-Some persons dream of King Albert (really? Individual).

-Let's investigate dreaming (what is a dream and how does it relate to the dreamer? Scientific, philosophical...)

Now take this thread. The question was: "How do you define spirituality?". Icon, how do you see that question? And how so you see the answer to it? Is it:

-My personal spirituality expresses itself in this or that way (assuming it's clear and obvious what spirituality actually is. You're not asking for a definition here but only for some illustrations or personal anecdotes)

-Give your own definition of spirituality (assuming it is clearly a notion that can never transcend the individual, so you want to collect various definitions according to the person who's defining and experiencing it)

-What precisely is spirituality and can we give an adequate definition of it (and once we know it better, how do people specifically relate to it?)

My approach in the old postings above was "objective", trying to explore spirituality "on itself", distinguishing it from "my" and "your" spirituality, distinguishing it also from what is often confused with spirituality, like aesthetic experience or religion. I was working towards some kind of matrix there, applying criteria like intensity, subjectivity, emotionality, transience... and their opposites to the phenomenon. But I have some profound doubts about this method lately. Is this approach even possible and what was exactly your intention? Thanks for any reply.

Give the friend some suggestions for reading material and tell him to find someone who is trained to mentor. And remind him that if the mentoring costs money, it's bogus. For some reason people are willing to shell out money for spiritual teachings.

Spirituality is the path of experiencing the infinite... or whatever term you like to use.

Dydimos, I must have a bad day, but what IS "experiencing the infinite"? I'm chewing on it for quite a while now, and somehow I just feel unable to grab it. It must be me, but it feels a bit empty as an expression. I think I could join you in the flavour of the concept, and even elaborate it, but is there some reality behind it? Are we even understanding ourselves here? Why not say: "Spirituality is feeling the hand of God on your shoulder?" Or: "Spirituality is melting together with the soul of the universe". Or... well, whatever. Don't we need to be a bit careful with words? Ok, another : "Spirituality is insight beyond all insight". Hm, dunno really. It all seems more easily said than done. Or is this just my "inferior" me?

Much easier said than done: that's the point, I think. All this gab is pretty useless. Better to practice. Like John Lennon said: "Better get yourself together, pretty soon you're gonna be dead." We can come up with thousands of one liners to describe spirituality, but they are all beside the point. The point is practice... practice, practice.

Is there reality behind it? Good question. I could answer "yes", but what's the point? The only way to know is to give it a try.

I don't think that's true. I have been sitting here quietly in my room for a few hours now and something occurred to me.

Spirituality is not the practice of something. It is the acceptance of something. Specifically, something which we cannot understand consciously.

There is something we all feel at one point or another and it is a feeling which we cannot explain. It is deep in our chest and it feels like a great pressure, almost as if there is a great power inside and it is trying to escape but we keep holding it back as if we are afraid to lose it.

Some people call it Chi, Xi, The Holy Spirit, The Way, God's Love, A Soul, and countless other names. In reality, it is something we create ourselves. It is something experienced differently by different people and it is as strong as the human mind itself. It drives our passion and imagination and it is something that we feel we can know to be beyond the self. Spirituality is a feeling and feelings cannot be practiced. They can only be experienced.

But can that feeling be investigated, and isn't that also what philosophy is about: not to feel but also to think? I was often seduced by the dry, cold, Wittgensteinian approach, until I realised this could never be my Path, being just too emotional by nature. Now I try something like a personal mix: emotions and intu?tions enriching thinking, both enriching life and borrowing from it. Dydymos, practicing spirituality may be extremely various, it can be very social and down-to-earth (like taking care of the sick), or it can be very individual (like meditation), or it can be (necessarily?) both. In all ages it was definitely felt as a "practice", I think of the "Spiritual Exercises" of Ignatius of Loyola and many other books of the kind. Now I'm just adding a few vague ideas here. Did somebody mention "the Mind of the Child" here, the "Zen or Beginner's Mind" of Suzuki? Spirituality having to do with our encounter with the world, our first fresh view where nothing is reduced yet, where thinking or explaning still have to happen. It is a feeling of wonder, there is no explanation yet, there's only the invitation of the outer world and the promise of an adventure. In one of my postings I tried to distinghuish it from related feelings like beauty or wonder, but I tend to think now that those feelings are just a necessary part of it. Spirituality is the basis of religions but also of science and philosophy; it has to do the "primeval connection" we have with the world, both on the "theoretical" and on the practical level, both in the intellectual and in the emotional sense. Or at least it's our personal experience of that connection. A "definition" may be dangerous here, as it is essentially limiting, while the concept / feeling / hypothesis we have here can only be described in and by its totality. Still wondering about related concepts or dimensions though: what is the relation with mysticism? With art? With top-science (take theoretical physics). Any other ideas?

This contradicts every major spiritual tradition. If you read the works which provide the basis for spiritual traditions you will see that practice is typically presented as the most important aspect of spiritual life. You will also find ample examples of spiritual teachers explicitly advising people to not just accept - the Buddha famously does this.

Feelings can be practiced. This point, I think, is well supported by modern psychiatry. Take a look at treatments for depression, for example. Drugs are certainly used, but so is talk therapy.

As for conscious understanding - how else is spirituality understood? Unconsciously, in sleep? Aspects of spirituality may transcend language, but that does not mean conscious understanding is impossible.

Interesting thoughts.

Whether or not spirituality can be defined by practice or acceptance would depend on the context of the question. "What is spirituality" could net - to divergent points of view - either answer.

I've been watching this thread; I know what I see spirituality to be and include. I'd suspect that most concepts expressed here are very close, yet we trip over the words to express it. [INDENT]Belief, Acceptance or By-Practice recognition of that which is beyond the coporeal (that's about as close as I can get to what spirituality is to me).
[/INDENT]Good luck on this!

What IS beyond the corporeal?? Is there anything at all beyond the corporeal? One gives in a bit all too easily to religious metaphysics here. Why not "the recognition that there MAY be something beyond the corporeal"? Or why not "the recognition of the beauty and wonder OF the corporeal" (give panthe?sm a chance)? Which leads me to two questions:

-Can spirituality be "false", just an illusion, an autosuggestion? Is this hmm "feeling", this "subjective notion" in any way guaranteeing its own thruth?

-Can there be a spirituality without religion, perhaps even an atheistic spirituality? Can materialists have their own private spiritual relation with the(ir) world? Does one need a spiritualist wordview to experience spirituality?

We are far from there...

Good question. I'll try to see if I can worth through this.

I'd say that concepts "beyond the corporeal", to me, would mean concepts, feelings or beliefs that are outside what can be collectively experienced through our physical senses.

How's that? Is that too narrowing?

Hm Khethil, I must be tired. But doesn't that also include a pig with ten legs? It's highly improbable somebody will ever see that, and yet...

And how about the devil, evil, whatever? Can there be a spirituality of Evil?

Questions, questions... Off to the mall !

I think spirituality might be a sort of appeal to the emotions. What do you most care about? And by most care about I mean get most emotional over? (You don't have to tell us.) Understand that, and that might be the root, the kernel, the nut, the nib of spirituality.

Taking spirituality literally, I feel, is the biggest mistake we can make since it is independent of group knowledge.

Bruce Lee is quoted as saying, "Before I learned martial arts, a punch was just a punch and a kick was just a kick. When I studied martial arts, a punch was no longer just a punch and a kick was no longer just a kick. Now I understand martial arts, and a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick."

Through the practice of martial arts (a very spiritual sport), Lee learned to accept what he already knew. It took practice to accept that his views were correct.

By accept, I am talking about the acceptance of an understanding. Many times we find that we feel something to be correct but do not know why. Through practice we learn the why. Through acceptance, I do the same.