> To continue my earlier message, like Robert Coyote, I use the term
> "spiritual" for want of something better, but I'm having second thoughts
> about this, because of the religious undertones the word carries.
Yes, that was the main thrust of my earlier post. The term "spiritual",
taken at face value, refers to qualities of the *spirit*; a term that
definitely has connotations one might want to refrain from making,
especially in a forum such as this. However, with the appropriate
caveats and qualifiers, the word might be used successfully as a synonym
for the other feelings that I mentioned. In my opinion though, its use
seems somewhat ill-considered.
> What I have referred to as "spiritual" are connections (for want of a better
> word) which seem to occur between two or more entities outside the realm of
> present scientific explanation. I do not mean to imply that these
> connections are supernatural or they will never be explained scientifically.
> To the contrary, I fully expect that they will.
Would you consider the environment/surroundings as an 'entity'? Perhaps
you could elaborate on your use of connection? I'm perfectly willing to
accept an explanation that simply involves an ineffable feeling that
there is something binding you and the perceived.
> For now, though, they're just THERE, like the placebo effect and the
> phenomenon of record breaking in sports. IMO, the compulsion to deny these
> phenomena simply because there's no explanation for them is, in its own way,
> as intellectually limiting as religion.
I don't think anyone was denying the phenomena exist. At least for me, I
was questioning the appropriate usage of the word when it seems others
are available that do a better job at representing what you are
All in the interest of (hopefully) better communication.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:21 MDT