What is Spirituality?
I’ve been blogging about spirituality for quite a while, and the things I write are obviously from my own point of view — biased by my own perspective and experiences. Yet, the fundamental principle of spirituality as I see it is that it crosses boundaries in every way and is a primary part of the human experience, no matter our language, culture, religion, class, race, or any of the myriad imaginary walls we use our minds to place between ourselves.
In order to perhaps bridge a few gaps, I think it may be prudent to come to a common understanding of exactly what “spirituality” is because the word in and of itself has a wide scope of definition. Spirituality, as a word, can mean a wide range of things and largely depends on a person’s own interests, perspective, and experiences — like a work of art, it can have a vast range of meanings in the minds of different people.
Because we bring ourselves into our individual concepts of what spirituality is, it may help to form a simplified and consolidated generalism for it, functionally and fundamentally. In this, I would suggest that spirituality is a part of what Christian theology describes as the Trinity — God, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet, that too needs to be generalized in order to gain a real understanding of what even the Trinity means.
In the Trinity, while sacrasanct in theological terms, the underlying principles are that of the mind, body and soul — i.e., guiding wisdom, physical existence, then spiritual essence. A spiritual essence, in this context, is the part of the human being that bridges the gap between mind and body. Spirit is what completes the trinity concept of human existence between mental and physical — a sort of “sixth sense,” sensual, illogical, intuitive portion of being. Like a conscience, or in some constructs, the actual conscience itself, spirit is the form of a human being which takes no form and no definition — it simply is, and is obviously present without being readily identified or even identifiable.
Because of the way we talk about it, and our ultimate inability to mentally or physically identify, contain, capture, or describe this “spirit,” we have gone all kinds of ways in “packaging” it. Spirit, in a New Age sense, is conceived as some sort of ethereal, nether-world kind of thing to be channelled and conjured. In a religious context, spirit has become some external and omniscient force directing, guiding, and sometimes even speaking directly to us in a mental capacity — “the voices are talking to me,” or “God told me to…”
In these terms, humanity has worked dilligently and erroneously to contain in a physical and/or mental way this third aspect of human existence which is just as much a part and independent within the whole as is being in a physical manifestation or having an internal ability to “think.” Spirit is the culmination of both of these traits, just as body is of spirit and mind, and mind is of spirit and body — functionally interdependent while aspectually independent.
Spirituality is therefore necessarily a study, a seeking, a yearning, and an evidentiary experience of spirit itself in the most tangible and meaningful prism there is — living, moving, and being.
Email this!
Share it!
RSS, Atom, more...
Vincent says –
September 4th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I’m glad you have written this, Tim. Like Paul’s book Original Faith, but more concisely, you have helped put the coffin-nail into spirituality, with what is to me the reductio ad absurdum though you are looking for the essence—of what you may see as already the essence.
I like the way that you nail it (spirituality) so close—I think integrally—to Christianity, via the Trinity.
Bridges the gap between mind and body. I like that. Because there isn’t a gap between mind and body—except in mind’s philosophical and erroneous eye.
To cut a long story short, you have made it clear that there is no such thing as spirituality, except as an idea: a pigeon-hole to put what is apparently left over when you subtract both body and mind in a thought-experiment.
But this is a fallacy from start to finish!
There is of course human subjectivity, which contains all sorts of wonderful things, including every phenomenon that some would label “spiritual”.
But the labelling is fallacious, as contemplation of your own words will reveal to you in your last paragraph.
The error is to name something spirituality as if it is an ingredient of a recipe, as if you could cook the dish with spirituality or without. It’s bad and dangerous.
It is like naming something “business ethics”; allowing you then to toy with the idea that decent behaviour in business is optional; because business is a topic of study and ethics is another topic of study.
All this, dear Tim, is madness and badness. At best, it does not help us live our lives.
Paul Maurice Martin says –
September 5th, 2008 at 12:21 am
It is a hard word to define, but I think it’s important for pointing to an area of experience which, though related to the psychological, is distinct.
Personally, in order to view spirituality as part of what it is to be human, I don’t find myself able to necessarily link it with Christianity - although like you, my view of my Christian heritage is to see its core message as speaking to spiritual growth. (Despite the fact that this message has often been distorted and even horribly misrepresented.) Actually, my sense is that we’re probably on the same wavelength here - i.e., that you’d also be inclined to give full recognition to non-Christian approaches.
timjamz says –
September 5th, 2008 at 1:18 am
@Vincent, I am concerned about you, and I mean this in a serious way so please do not be offended at what I am about to say. In the last post, you questioned whether our discussions here were aimed at being reduced to a simplistic parsing word definitions — then, to prove your point, suggested that primal communication could not rely on words with complex definitions. Here, you’re critiquing my assessment of spirit and spirituality as “reductio ad absurdum” as though to simplify the context is a fallacy.
It seems as though you are arguing against a reality including “spirit,” simply because you don’t wish to believe it real or have some motive for convincing me there is no such thing. As such, I wonder if the hostility toward the concept is an expression of something more primal, which you may be suppressing.
In the last post, we referred to the tribal and primal sort of view — the basic and “natural” human condition in the sense of what motivates us as organisms. One of the things you mentioned was the laughable thought of trying to convey “psychological capitalism” and “enlightenment” to someone in a tribal/primal sort of setting — yet, spirit is one of those things inherent with tribal and primal societies.
To further express the conflict, you compared my condensation of spirit and spirituality into more simple and primal terms with using a political term like “business ethics” as though my work in trying to help anyone understand what spirit is from a modern yet accurate point of view is something evil and conspirious.
Is it madness or badness to help people reconnect with a real and living spirit, vice being left with the only options of ignoring or supporting false ideologies such as religious doctrine or “business ethics?” Or does the presentation instill a subconscious fear in your spirit that your mental conclusions about spirit may be inaccurate?
Don’t eat me!
timjamz says –
September 5th, 2008 at 1:31 am
@Paul: I wasn’t linking it with Christianity — just pulling a commonly known reference to aid in the connection and understanding. And, you’re right! It is a very difficult thing to understand and comprehend because of the cultural battle over ownership of the concepts; as you say, distorted and misrepresented.
As for wavelength, I think that’s something that you and I certainly have in common — a belief in the universality of this thing we’re trying to get back to, full circle. And, I don’t think anyone (or any religion) holds a monopoly on the source of this spirit.
Vincent says –
September 8th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I don’t know, Tim, you may be right. Looking at what I wrote the other day I dissociate myself from it. Have no idea what that idiot Vincent wrote.
But there is all the difference between spirit as understood by primitive peoples and this thing which people suffering from civilization call spirituality - which embraces a great deal of unholy corruption and is best left alone.
Vincent says –
September 8th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“Is it madness or badness to help people reconnect with a real and living spirit, vice being left with the only options of ignoring or supporting false ideologies such as religious doctrine or “business ethics?” Or does the presentation instill a subconscious fear in your spirit that your mental conclusions about spirit may be inaccurate?”
Yes, I do think it is madness or badness to help people reconnect with that. Any attempt to “help” people in this way is merely to infect them further, with a slightly different false ideology from the one which they already hold. Best to ignore it all and deal only with real things.
timjamz says –
September 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Fantastic. That’s one to be remembered! :-)
I am wondering if you have set a trap here with these two responses — considering how they conflict. Even so, I’ll take the bait…
If there is a difference between what primitive peoples see as “spirit” and what those of us suffering from civilization perceive, does it necessarily mean that those of us in civilization are incapable of perceiving it in the unique way as those in primitive societies?
Assuming that it is not impossible, is it bad to help to reconnect people with their primitive and subsequently more “connected” level of spiritual understanding?
Vincent says –
September 9th, 2008 at 2:15 am
I may have unconsciously set a trap Tim on the lines you suggest, for you may be able to help me reconnect with something. I am not sure whether I am on the primitive or civilized side.
the latest word which seems to need defining is “help”. (Everything I accuse you of applies to me, you see. I’m the one in need of definitions.)
I believe people should connect with their primitive level of spiritual understanding, yes. Should I help them? Let me illustrate.
On Paul’s Original Faith blog, he has a link to a “Spiritual Blog Directory” - which lists his blog of course. It also lists Spiritual Warfare, a Catholic blog which has a post An answer to Abortion, from which I quote a short passage:
The answer lay within a new Religious Order which began 15 years ago who have called themselves The Sisters Of Life. These Sisters are relevant and wear their Habits with humility and exuberance as they help women and men make the right choices in their lives which is to choose to have their babies rather than feel overwhelmed and coerced by the feminist movement to abort their unborn child.
That is why I am not happy with the word “help”.
Vincent says –
September 9th, 2008 at 2:23 am
I am one of those who think abortion is a sad and unfortunate thing, but to make it a black and white issue from which political slogans can be derived is to ignore what is sad and unfortunate for the sake of bashing thine enemy.
Help is all too often used in this sense: to help homosexuals; to help children’s education by setting government-controlled targets to terrify their teachers into conformity with the policies of the day; to help muslim countries become democracies by invading them.
So though I hate to generalize and indeed moralize, I am suspicious of help.
Vincent says –
September 9th, 2008 at 2:25 am
I love the way they use “choice” in the above: to help someone make the right choice which is to ….
The Spanish Inquisition was known for its humility and exuberance, and did the same kind of thing.
And this is not a Catholic-bashing or even a Christian-bashing exercise, by the way.
timjamz says –
September 9th, 2008 at 8:05 am
You’ve hit on two key things here, which I see as fundamentally broken in our civility.
First, you mentioned that the things of which you are outwardly critical are generally things that, when analyzed with objectivity, are things that apply fundamentally to yourself. I hope you know that this is true of everyone, and that I am well aware of this nature within myself. Even though I go on and on about how disconnected people are from a true and essential relationship with God, it is most likely that I am working to remedy this sort of disconnect in myself — though, of course, this dichotomy of purpose is by design from the most primitive of levels.
Second, you use the word “help” in specific, but another one of these highly abused, shoot-from-the-hip words is “love.” I think we’ve already established that “spirituality” is one of them also.
So, in light of both these points, I do aim to help — through a subjectively objective slant in this blog, and indeed through living. Obviously, you and I both have a great deal more of our lives lived beyond the words typed on these here “Internets” (as it should be).
As you say, though, help isn’t really help when it’s motivated with subversion. Similarly, I can love my wife, love my child, love my country, love good music, love a good cup of coffee, and love moments like sharing with my wife and daughter the emerging of a butterfly from its chrysalis amid the usual morning rush. The latter of these is probably the most pure and noble essence of the word “love,” even though I use the word in a myriad contexts.
I think the ultimate frivolity of the most complicated language on Earth is reminiscent of the human relationship with God.
Vincent says –
September 9th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Not surewhat “our civility” means. You and I being civil together?
timjamz says –
September 9th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The “civil” evolution of human beings… i.e. civilization.
jiggers says –
September 18th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Those that know do not say.
Those that say do not know.
You have my sympathy.
Tim says –
September 18th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
jiggers: Thank you for stopping by to share your thoughts. Can you expound on this?
jiggers says –
September 18th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Re. Tao Teh Ching
by Lao Tzu
Spirituality is something that is ineffable.
That which is incapable of being expressed in words.
Void of any word, thought, or concept.
jiggers says –
September 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Re. Tao Teh Ching
by Lao Tzu
Spirituality is ineffable.
That which is incapable of being expressed in words.
Tim says –
September 18th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I imagine this is correct — the emination of spirit, being as that. However, what about the journey toward experiencing this “stillness,” as it were? That’s what I see as this word, “spirituality” — the journey, not the destination. As such, the fact Lao Tzu wrote so many words is evidence that words are important on this journey, no?
Tim says –
September 18th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
In this regard, do you have sympathy for me, or empathy?
jiggers says –
September 18th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Both empathy, sympathy and compassion for good measure.
Before the foot is lifted the journey is over.
Before the teacher speaks the lesson is learned.
No journey, no destination.
You have been and forever will be in this moment.
Lao Tsu (a poet) merely pointed the “way”.
Tim says –
September 19th, 2008 at 12:06 am
I see your point. However, am I less or more than Lao Tzu for my own efforts?
And, thank you for the compassion. I need all I can get.
jiggers says –
September 19th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Who is this “I” that objectifies yourself ? You are Lao Tzu.
It is just that you do not realize this.
Everything you see or hear is nothing more
than the entire content of your being.
“thou are that.”