art and spirituality
I'm questioning the relevance of art to this debate. Spirituality seems to me to be at the heart of it, since that's emilmoller's subject from his first comment.
Bringing in art seems to me equivalent to bringing in extra-sensory perception: it's a way of presenting the imo strawman argument that there are other approaches and science doesn't understand everything. No one is denying science doesn't understand everything. So what? That does not prove in any way that such a thing as a "spiritual dimension" (level, sphere, zone, whatever) even exists. And, when asked to discuss this by defining and explaining his idea of spirituality, emil just says there are tools, go away and use them for three years, and You Will Understand.
For me, that just won't cut it.
one has to have had first hand experience in order to say something sensible about it
I am not able to reveal anything resembling what I would be trying to describe
I can and did point to the consequences of engaging oneself re spirituality: Nelson Mandela in stead of Al Capone. I hope this makes readers curious re the qualities inherent in the domain I refer to.
I wonder why it is so hard to accept the fact that a specific domain demands other research skills than an other domain. When the differences in qualities and the possibilities to attain them does not persuade, I will not be able to do that neither.
Emil
