WHAT IS SPIRITUALITY?
_________________________

It is difficult to give a definitive definition of spirituality because it is a feeling rather than something tangible. It may manifest as something tangible in that it invokes a biological response but its nature is elusive of the mind.

Let's step back a moment.

I believe that the best analogy of the mind is that it is like a radio receiver that is wireless; that is, that it draws something from the aether (the medium it travels through) and can be 'tuned in', like a radio (receiver). The biological response is the transmitter of that which is received (however that might manifest itself).

Both the reception and response are dependent on the characteristics of a person at a given time and location; thus it is variable at any given instant. It is not, therefore static (as in stationary).

We need to first explain the universe as an electrical entity, not a gravitational one. This is where most mistakes regarding spirituality (and cosmology) occur. The verifiable evidence of the universe being electrical (or a plasma) is not concurrent with the established and unverifiable gravitational one. Check out The Electrical Universe in your browser and see for yourself.

Everything in the universe-as-a-whole has to move from one place to another through something. This is the aether. Although this is an archaic term it serves us well in contemplating the electrical nature of the universe.

Radio waves (frequencies) travel through the 'air' (they cannot travel through the 'vacuum' of spcace). Radio waves travel at all different types of frequencies (let's say long waves for bass and short waves for treble). We can tune in a radio to pick up one or the other. This description is very simplistic, of course.

Bass and treble will have a biological effect on the receiver. Bass may make us feel a certain way 'x' and treble may make us feel 'y'. This will not be a constant; it will depend on many, many other factors as well. The biological effect (transmission depending on the reception) will occur as an internal feeling and perhaps and/or an external behaviour.

The better the radio, the better the more waves can be received. The finer the tuner, likewise. Thus all is dependent on the receiver.

All living organisms react to stimuli. All stimuli cause a reaction of some kind, whatever it is. It follows that the more accurate the receptor/filterer, the more the reaction because of the availability of extra data (stimulus).

We must also include the filtering out of incoming data, also dependent on the time, place and circumstances of the receiver. This is essential for survival.

What is spiritual, I believe (at present) is that a receiver is able to tune in to more data coming from the universe-as-a-whole and able to filter with greater accuracy than another receiver getting the same data. The reaction is not so important here, at least at present.


DATA FROM THE UNIVERSE-AS-A-WHOLE
/
RECEIVER
(TIME PLACE CIRCUMSTANCE)
/
TUNING INTO THE DATA
/
FILTERING THE DATA
/
REACTING TO THE DATA

The spiritual world, in my view is the data from the universe-as-a-whole. It should be possible for all living organisms to receive this data. What makes the difference is the need or the ability to filter this information by the receiver (time, place, circumstance) by any given living organism.

Given that there are a myriad living organisms and a myriad of tuneable data, all at a different time, place and circumstance, it is not surprising that not everything can tune in to the available waves (frequencies, etc.).

I do not think that there are certain 'waves of spirituality' that some can tune in to and some cannot. The waves are universal; there all the time. I just believe that for certain reasons (whatever they are) they are not available to every living organism due to their tuning/filtering propensities.

All the above, of course, is at a level below that of attaching a 'name' to anything in particular. The radio is an analogy. The method by which Man stagnates himself in discussions of the definition of spirituality is to name the phenomenon. Thus calling things like 'god' and so forth (although perhaps perfectly valid in some situations). This is a pity because calling something by a name (especially an intangible one e.g. truth, beauty, spirituality) does not tell us what it is; rather what it is not. Further, the connotations of calling something by a name tend to escalate into myth, speculation, unverifiable 'facts' and nonsensical extrapolation.

In essence, spirituality is the ability to tune in to the universe-as-a-whole when and where required and filtering without the constraints of verbalising and name calling.

Those people who appear more 'spritual' than others in some people's terms are merely those who are able to tune in to more and different frequencies than others. They also tend towards the dynamic, rather than verbalisation.



Return to CONTENTS page