Spirituality, qu'ès-aquo ?
This Knol is the translation by Astrid ROSART of :
I owe you an explanation on this board's title, a bit esoteric in the negative sense of the word. In fact it reflects in a basic way my perplexity, my ignorance and my annoyance at having to work on a subject that I'm not feeling, that therefore I do not master, and that consequently I will not handle as it should be handled.
However I will extensively share with you my questions, my hesitations, my fear of heights with that word, that I think there is every reason to be wary of, because I suspect a dirty trick bordering on intellectual scam.
But enough of pessimism, I'll try to be positive, do my work of apprentice honestly, to ultimately, progress on the subject which at first made me so uncomfortable.
"Spirituality", I do not know what it is, but I will return to it in a moment.
However, "Qu'ès-aquo" is a Provencal expression which means in French "what is this" and that the Lorraine patois that is dear to my heart, as to our Venerable Master I hope, appropriated with this accurate translation: "Where did they get this idea from, as if we had not enough with all that we have already."
In Lorraine the expression perfectly conveys my disappointment and my annoyance, plus a touch of irony, suggesting that it is useless to get worked up and that it will pass as the rest passed.
So spirituality, let's do this since we have to. I have said it, I do not know very well what it is, so I'll make much use of my Robert, alphabetic dictionary and analog of the French language, the 1977 edition in ten volumes. I often put it to contribution to write my boards, today I would like to honor it for this one since it will give me three definitions.
1° - Religion and philosophy : Spirituality = Trait of what is spiritual, independent of material, body.
2° – Religion : Spirituality = Set of beliefs, pratices that involve the life of the soul, the religious mysticism.
3°- Spiritual Life : Spirituality = Trait of what is spiritual ; aspiration to moral values.
Two of the three definitions have very religious connotations reflecting in my view the religious tradition that provided them, these are the first two. The third refers to moral values to be achieved.
Fortunately in our circle, we must not dwell on what deals with religions to not risk contamination. So we will skip quickly the two involved.
I nevertheless give here the few thoughts that the three inspire in me.
1°- Trait of what is spiritual, independent of material, body.
The mind must have the recognition of the belly. It is dependent of the material of which it must be inseparable. Has anyone ever seen a spirit hovering over waters elsewhere than in the Bible? No. And even if that were the case, to glide, what would it lean on, on the air obviously. So the spirit must rely on the material to exist. So I do not take this definition into account.
2° - Set of beliefs, practices that involve the life of the soul, the religious mysticism.
The spirit, we come to get an accurate enough representation of it since we're working with it. We reflect, we remember, we imagine, we reason, in short our spirit produces something that is identifiable if not palpable. We are sure it exists through the manifestations of its activity.
For the soul, I am much less certain. This concept probably began with Plato, who would have somehow tried to "personify" the breath of life. It should be regarded as a myth and for that matter, science, as far as I know, recuses its existence. So until proven otherwise, let's pretend the soul does not exist and skip this definition of spirituality, too religious to be fair. I do not take it into account either. Moreover beliefs should never be part of the arsenal of seeker of truth. "One can believe in god, everything else we should be certain of, " said my physics teacher in 8th grade. And I, who does not even believe in GADLU to which one day we will have to settle the score for the sake of internal consistency. In passing I note that on Google-Knol, I recently published a contribution to this subject. I give here the internet address for amateurs. It's a scoop.
3° - Trait of what is spiritual, aspiration to moral values.
The important words in this definition: - Aspiration - and – Moral values.
Aspiration: I understand “tendency to bring one's desires into something” (in this case the Moral values). This is clearly the realm of intentions and not actions. It is quite common in masonry and I get hauled over the coals because I specialize in this, always full of good intentions but equally of good excuses.
Still, let's recognize that action is better than good intentions. If this one does not lead to action, it is worse than no intention at all. We should emphasize a definition based on actions.
Moral values : the problem here, is tricky. Indeed, in 12th grade, in my time, I was taught that in morals, “truth below the Pyrenees, error beyond” (Thoughts of Pascal). Moral values being elastic, it is necessary, before accepting them, to study them one by one. The reference to a "Universal Morality" does not seem to be in itself a guarantee of acceptability. People are so diverse and customs so varied and evolving that Universal Morality may be a handy catchall for lazy spirits. For example : sodomy was in ancient Greece a quite moral practice, an abomination in Catholic France last century, and it is currently thought that morality should not concern the sexual practices of individuals, in other words, morality doesn't give a damn. In space and time morality is elastic. So what universal morality? It would have been defined where, by whom, what year, what month, what day, for what purpose, to serve whose interests..... ?
Critical examination is therefore essential at all times to ensure that actions do follow the intentions and to ensure that the moral values in line of sight are "humanist".
If humanism was not a more serious guarantee than morality, I would only be postponing the problem. However I think it is, I have written a previous board on the subject, and showed that humanism was an "acceptable swear word" if what it meant was :
“Theory that takes man as the end and as a superior value”.
That means, absolutely superior, so superior to everything, including to GADLU. Humanism deserves its name only if it is strictly secular and atheist.
The definition of spirituality, according to me, might be : “way of living and thinking determining the development of a humanism based on Man being considered as an absolutely superior value”. The term aspiration and the reference to suspect moral values have disappeared. The evidence of this spirituality would obviously be actions taken, and not professions of faith.
Ultimately, the three definitions of the Robert which fail to clearly distinguish themselves from the religious comfort me so little about this Spirituality that I stay more than reserved on the subject.
Indeed it is unrealistic, even presumptuous, to think that my definition of spirituality will prevail. The three that figure in the Robert will continue to lay down the law. And the religious will continue to control spirits on the quiet "without knowledge of their own freewill" I could say if I did not fear the barbarism that has always earned us a zero in Latin grammar. It was the time when the learning of this language called "dead" in my Erckmann-Chatrian high school in Phalsbourg (the public one, not the private one that wore the ridiculous name of Saint Anthony), manufactured critics galore. I thank my teachers, the gentlemen Baerenbach and Bérath who knew how to make me love the precise discipline that are mathematics. I owe them much of my freedom of thought. "Sapere aude" (Dare to know), that is the motto of the Enlightenment. Let us be worthy of it.
(In an a parte, an explanation for this near-hatred for Saint Anthony. The eponymous high school that was also located in Phalsbourg was private, Catholic, and welcomed only boys when my public high school was mixed. On Thursday afternoon, the day we finished classes earlier, these "bastards" came to hit on our girlfriends and the tension was at its peak. This made everyone uncomfortable when it did not degenerate into street fights.)
To summarize my point of view let's say that I feel rather close to Montesquieu who said :
It's extraordinary for all of philosophy to consist in these three words: "I don't care.".
(My Thoughts)
I note in passing that the famous Montesquieu, who certainly knew how to read and write, could not count, because grammatically, "I don't care" is four words, not three. But let's not quibble, it is simply a remark of my critical mind.
So tonight, a friend of wisdom now more than ever, I do not quite 'not care', I stay on my guard in the presence of this "thing" that seems to me to be of the same nature as a religion that would be ashamed of speaking its name, especially since in masonry we often specify secular spirituality. In this expression that emphasizes what might be a problem, to better duck the issue or conceal the poison, resides the dirty trick that I dreaded from the beginning.
I think I have avoided the trap by considering that MAN, like the ANIMAL, like the PLANT and theMINERAL, is one of the ways in which appears to us the COSMOS. MAN is neither good nor bad, neither good nor evil, he is beautiful, ..... especially the WOMEN.
Ultimately, to be fully masonic, and not a vulgar con of the "Spiritism, Spirit are you there ? " sort,
Spirituality should be aesthetic.
Note for the record: In my Grand Robert, Aesthetic “Science of feeling" and more specifically for what we are talking about "science of beauty in nature and in the royal art".
For Wikipedia which is used to writing pages and pages "Aesthetics is more generally the science of the sensitive, of what is given to the senses in intuition or vision, that is to say, in space and time, as opposed to what is tantamount to the intelligible, the understanding or pure reason".
Logic would have dictated that throughout this board I be "spiritual" in the didactic sense of the word – of the spirit as opposed to the material. It would have been the least I could do.
In the end, it is clear that it did not happen, I was at most "spiritual" in the enlightened sense of the term, that is to say- fun as opposed to boring.
But perhaps I have dealt too lightly with this heavy subject. I apologize.
I said with great pleasure on the February 28th 2011
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire