Re: RE[2]: virus: Re: Science and Religion
Fri, 4 Oct 1996 00:38:46 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 27 Nov 1956, David Leeper wrote:

> >And yes, I think 'spirituality' is pseudo, but not necessarily invalid.
> An example of a valid pseudo would be....?
> >I think we are still looking for a valid definition of the term as it applies
> >to CoV.
> Spirituality, like art, has no invalid definition. Each subjective definition is valid within
> its own context.

There are invalid definitions for art, i.e. 'the definition is contrary
to all heuristic meaning'. The existence of invalid definitions for
'spirituality' has already been amply demonstrated in previous posts.

The absence of invalid definition is equivalent to the absence of all
definition. I think most of us would agree that 'spirituality' has very
little direct dependence with how well-lined one's pocketbook is.
[Indirect dependencies are another question....]

> >I am a materialist, however, and am still unwilling to separate any
spirit from the flesh.

Materialism is not required for that conclusion.

/ Kenneth Boyd