To my somewhat scientific and simple way of thinking \’spirit\’ an \’spiritualism\’ can be properly defined by the origins of the first of these.
When there was a bump in the night, an apparition, an unexplained theft way back in the dark ages, after some discussion it must have been to easy to assign the cause to a \’spirit\’. In our terms it would be a substitute for \’Cause unknown\’ but in their terms it was a chance to dress up their conclusions by blaming everything on a supernatural cause with properties and skills way outside of anyone\’s experience.
So when I hear the terms \’spirit\’ and \’spiritualism\’ I now substitute simply
\’Cause unknown\’. Any other dressing up is unnecessary.
When someone describes a spiritual experience then yes there has been a change inside them but they cannot explain it and probably no one ever will. However they prolong its effects by retelling and embroidering the basic facts, bestowing them with far more credibility than they are worth.
A good spiritual experience IS worth having but only as a shake up of the senses and an good opportunity for more rational thinking. If you do manage to rationalise it that should make it easier to reproduce the experience even at will e.g. \’lucid dreaming\’.
Notify me of follow-up replies via email
