Sorry that I (unintentionally) do not give you the last word, but I cannot leave unattended such a big misunderstanding. In any case, you too have the choice of disregarding this post.
Greta wrote:No, I am making a very precise analogy that is entirely logical. Spirituality is much the same as creativity and active art appreciation, a focus on things that are nourishing to the soul or, since that is another s-word that bothers you, our emotions and minds.
I've been talking all the time (even when you made the false analogy) about the concept conveyed by the term "secular spirituality". As I had said before, I never thought there was something concrete behind that label that necessarily people will have to deal with in their lives (it's like joining a book club) and therefore, I'm not arguing for a particular content that will make the term more acceptable. Again, I'm not saying what "secular spirituality" is or ought to be, and that applies for the term "spirituality" alone, too.
Greta wrote:
So much for the poetry of life, reduced to bits, bytes and "utilitarian concepts". Your post reminds me of the Auditors of Reality in Terry Pratchett's The Thief of Time, who tried to understand art by examining its component atoms.
I do not consider emotions as trivial as you do, nor their relationship with higher thought, which is often a trigger for peak experiences.
I have never said emotions are trivial, nor my refusal to embrace the concept of "secular spirituality" means in any sense that I promote an utilitarian view of life, as if all of the sudden, "secular spiritualists", whoever they are, had monopolized access to things that "nourish the soul". That's nonsense and confirms my suspicion that just exactly as theists do when referring to spirituality, the term is used as a way to balance the prejudiced concept they have of the term "materialism", and to pretend the attainment of a superior level in human flourishing, kind of a priesthood level in secularism, which unfortunately seems to navigate only in the waters of romanticism. Make a big display of emotions or you're a soulless, hollow mannequin.
Greta wrote:
Have you ever, in contemplation, been completely mentally blown out of the water by the scale and complex nature of the reality? Have you, when in nature, felt great love for, and gratitude to, the Earth?
Do I need to say this? I have always felt both attraction and respect for nature. The games of my infancy were played among trees, mud, insects, and dozens of other animals. I hate urban life (would prefer to live deep in the forest or at the top of a mountain), but I find myself fortunate that my city is surrounded by natural spectacles just a few miles away. I feel a special connection with the themes of wolves and my favorite poem from childhood it titled "The Wolf's Motives", which features none other than St. Francis of Assisi. I connect with Hesse's quote about trees being like sanctuaries. I love the sublimeness in some music and surely, as any other human being, I seek for "peak experiences" that leave lasting impressions. I don't think any of that is particularly related to a mind setup or lifestyle that could be labeled "spiritual" in the same sense that theists or dualists understand it. And I also don't think that pure rational analysis or practical tasks belong to a lower dimension than those that look more joyful or inspiring. If we were forced to use the term "spiritual", the work of a methodical librarian is as spiritual as that of a gospel singer, and that's for what they both have in common: they are found at the top levels of the human hierarchy of needs.
. I apologise for any confusion caused. 