I remember the first time I watched The Matrix. It was so foreign to me that I had trouble wrapping my head around it. I had to watch it twice before I began to understand what it was about. Repeated viewings clarified and deepened my understanding.
The same thing happened when I first listened to the music of Tool. I was taken by it but had to listen to Lateralus several times before I could really follow and appreciate the music.
Both The Matrix and Lateralus were foreign to my frame of reference when I first encountered them. It took more than one attempt but once I got them I had "Wow!" experiences. Then I enjoyed them and watched all the Matrix films and listened to all of Lateralus many times.
For some reading what I write about spirit can be like my experiences with The Matrix and Lateralus. What I write about spirit might be foreign to their frame of reference. As a result they might dismiss it too quickly and not give themselves enough time to understand.
Instead of dismissing readers might try to understand within their own current frame of reference. For example, some readers might have their own clear definition of spirit and read their definition into what I write. When they do, they misunderstand what I write.
I am willing to risk my ideas about spirit being foreign to some of my readers. I am willing to risk being dismissed or misunderstood. I am willing to take these risks because I want to offer a new perspective on spirit. I believe a new perspective is needed because, as essential as spirit is to life, most current perspectives on spirit are incoherent and shallow at best.
Current perspectives are incoherent because many assume that there is a broad, general consensus on what the word spirit means. As a result, those who use the word do not say what they mean by it. That there is no such broad, general consensus can be easily confirmed by taking an informal survey in which we ask people what they mean by the word spirit. I've been doing this for years. I have yet to find two people with the same definition of spirit.
That there is no broad, general consensus on what the word spirit means can be further confirmed when we read something about spirit and try to determine exactly what the author means by the word. Sometimes we can tell from the context. Most of the time we cannot.
Since there is no general, broad consensus on the meaning of the word spirit, most of what is said about spirit is shallow. How can we have in-depth discussions about spirit if we do not know what we are talking about? The shallowness is further assured by the rather airy ideas many have about whatever they might mean by the word spirit.
As a consequence of the incoherence and shallowness of current perspectives of spirit, discussions around the concepts of spiritual and spirituality are equally incoherent and shallow. This is the case in spite of the fact that for many spirit, spiritual, and spirituality are very important. This is especially true for the growing numbers of those who identify as "spiritual but not religious".
I want to bring some coherence and substance to the discussion about all three words: spirit, spiritual, and spirituality. I begin my effort by giving short, simple, and specific definitions of the words.
By "spirit" I mean "that which animates and makes alive."
By "spiritual" I mean "that which is of or related to spirit."
By "spirituality" I refer to "a body of words and practices related to spirit."
In order to understand what I write about spirit, spiritual, and spirituality I ask my readers to keep in mind how I define the words.
No comments:
Post a Comment