Posted by Paul Malo on October 07, 2002 at 07:09:24:
In Reply to: Re: "Spirituality?" posted by BRUTUS on October 07, 2002 at 06:47:24:
Good clarification. You're talking about psychological experiece as distinct from physiological experience. Of course, virtually (?) all experience is physiological originally. Experience only becomes psychological when sense perceptions are interpreted mentally. In this sense, then, psychological experiences are meta-physical. Being "beyond" the physical is not, however, synonomous with being "supernatural," or above what is natural.
The "spiritual" term, at least as commonly used here, implies the latter--communing with what is above and beyond natural human experience. Indeed, even "metaphysics" has come to suggest superstition and fantasy, in popular use of the term. I suppose it often suggests not "meta-physics" but "contra-physics." We have our share of New Age cults, with boutiques full of nonsensical books and totems. That's what comes to mind, as well as religion, when you use the term, "spiritual." I would prefer to avert this sort of hocus-pocus in architectural theory and criticism.
Of course, I share your recognition of the psychological potential of architectural form in general, and of architectural space in particular. But I'd rather not talk about it being "spiritual."
Free 3D Models