That was a long post, J, but I'm not sure we have to accept the
duality you propose, as such.
Which is to say that I may just be confused (that's the likeliest
notion), but I do not find it impossible to accept a spiritual
dimension to life without having some Prime Mover (or God') behind the
whole thing.
I dont think you were really putting it forth, but some of your
argument sounded, to me, an awful lot like Creationism's child,
Intelligent Design.
Whatever meaning 'spiritual' has (& it has far too many), I feel it
doesnt require an attachment to 'a Grand Design.'
That art has that quality, or can, however, absolutely.
Doug
On 14-Sep-08, at 5:27 AM, Judy Prince wrote:
> Scientific. Spiritual.
Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
Latest books:
Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
Wednesdays'
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
Language is sound as sense.
Music is sound as sound.
R. Murray Schafer
|