According to P. Marchais the difference of
nature of the data in the paper of A. Randrup demands a
critical study of the various elements involved: word,
domain studied, modes of approach, correlations of these
factors.
The Word "Spirituality"
The word "spirituality" is
supposed to designate a certain subject matter, but in
the international discourse going on it is used with
several different meanings. It carries both a general and
a more particular sense which depends on the cultural as
well as the individual frame of reference of the user.
In our occidental world the word
"spirituality" refers etymologically to
concepts from ancient cultures such as
"psychos" (the psyche), "nous"
(thought) and "pneuma" (the creative spirit),
each of these terms being used with different meanings.
In the course of history the idea of spirituality was
modified in occidental culture by the strong influence of
judeo-christianity. Under this influence the relations
between man and the universe have become conceived as
more abstract and sacred, and the term
"spirituality" has aquired a religious sense,
being conceived as the Spirit which connects man with his
God. In this process the dynamics which concern the
spirituality have ascended in the hierarchy of the
psychical system of man, and in turn exerted an influence
on the higher levels of this hierarchy, particularly the
mental syntheses. Later the term "spirituality"
became progressively desacralized under the influence of
materialism.
The particular meaning of
"spirituality", for the individual user of the
word is influenced not only by his culture but also by
his convictions and his personal experiences.
For some people this word thus has a
meaning which is global, vague and unspecific with the
risk of being erroneous, while for others it designates a
natural transcendence of thought, and for still others it
specifies its sacred nature (Marchais 1989).
Spirituality as a Domain of Studies
Since the word "spirituality"
is used with several meanings, the domain of spirituality
covers different phenomena, which cannot be studied by
the same means.
It covers phenomena which can be purely
natural, preternatural (transcendental affective,
imaginary or ideological, with esoteric, spiritistic or
religious aspects), genuinely supernatural ("the
secrete region where the Holy Spirit meets man") or
an intricacy of several of these different phenomena.
Consequently, all studies of
spirituality ought to remain discriminative, and one can
not a priori resolve on an approach which is
either exclusively materialist or exclusively idealist.
Adherents of each of these approaches should also
consider the other approach.
Modes of Approach to Spirituality
All discourse on experienced
spirituality rests implicitly on the cognitive ways used
by the instinctive-affective and intellectual personality
of each person and consequently on the projections of his
personal frame of reference. It imposes feelings, a
natural language and a natural logic. A natural logic is
a logic used spontaneously for customary reasonings
performed by means of an everyday language (Grize, 1996).
Such discourse is situated in a context, is related to
notions and can use "weak" analogies.
Inversely, all discourse evoking spirituality in a
general and universal sense, where formal logic is
applied, must necessarily be situated outside a specific
context. It is concerned with concepts and implicitly
ought to utilise identities or at least
"strong" analogies (Marchais 1997; Marchais and
Grize 1994) although this may a priori appear to
be without sense, considering that the individual in his
mind would deal with a world which is outside this mind.
The thomistic thinking (Saint Thomas of Aquinas) can,
however, furnish a formal and coherent discourse on this
subject, by founding itself on transcendentals considered
as notions of "strong" analogy (Marchais and
Grize 1994).
Besides, all rational studies imply the
consideration of different levels of determinism and of
the nature of the procedures used. Such studies avoid a
global determinism which emerges from mythic thinking and
magic behaviors.
It follows that in a perspective of
rational knowledge, the reports about spiritual
experiences cannot be treated in the same way as
scientific theories about spirituality in general with
its different aspects.
Correlations
Attempts to establish correspondences
between factors of different nature would be risky. In
fact, if sensory experiences or perceptions (seen as
different from the "observations" of science)
can be approached to the "out there" of
scientists and influence a materialist conception of
nature, there is nothing which a priori authorizes
such an approachment. Correspondences should be
established between factors or levels of the same nature,
and in a scientific study they should be based on an
adaptive logic of function. This logic of function is a
protologic, which orients the individual towards a formal
or natural logic dependent on the nature of the objects
which are studied. The workings of this protologic was
recently observed in the quasi simultaneous
contradictions appearing in the discourse of some mental
patients (Marchais 1997; Marchais and Grize 1997). It is
based on a circuit of knowledge related to a system of
opening-closure which depends on the strength of the
analogies utilized by the subject. These analogies may be
"weak" or "strong" as influenced by
instinctive-emotive-affective charges which confer on the
individual a certain aptitude to believe without
insisting on proof ("créditivité"). In the
circuit of knowledge the latter is influenced by the
degree of strength of the analogies which are used. The
stronger the instinctive-emotive-affective charges, the
more they contribute to open the logic circuit of
knowledge and orient it towards a natural logic. In
contrast, the weaker these charges, the more the logic
circuit tends to close and orient itself towards a formal
logic.
It is thus not possible to compare
sensory experiences in general with scientific
observations without considering the different logics and
languages which are applied to them: natural logic and
language in the former case (the subject being in the
situation), formal logic and language in the latter (the
observer disengages himself from the situation). The
attitudes are therefore not the same. Attempts to
assimilate them would therefore only lead to
incomprehension and to endless interrogations.
Consequences
It follows that no rational conclusion
can be drawn concerning the nature of spirituality in its
global form or in its supernatural dimension. Reason can
only state the existence of the data provided on this
subject and the necessity to distinguish between these
data.
The scientific thought, which
establishes correlations between objective and verifiable
phenomena, can without doubt study the natural conditions
for the experience called "spirituality" by the
subject (Marchais and Randrup 1994), but it cannot define
the essence of this experience in its supernatural
dimension, which is beyond the scientific thought, for a
subject having a faith, even though this is rejected or
reduced into a natural dimension by the non-believer.
Note
1. Translated by Axel Randrup
International Center for Interdisciplinary Research in
Psychiatry, Denmark
References
Grize J.-B. (1996): Logique
naturelle et communications. PUF, Paris.
Marchais P. (1989): (with the
participation of Axel Randrup), Le Phénomène moral.
Approche psychiatrique et interdisciplinaire. Privat,
Toulouse, France.
Marchais, P. (1997): "Des modes de
raisonnements en psychiatrie. Vers une nouvelle fonction
logique". Ann. Méd.-Psychol. (Paris) Vol. 155, No.
2, 282-287.
Marchais, P. and Grize J.-B. (1994):
"Logique et analogie en psychiatrie. Leur
"racine commune".", Ann. Méd.-Psychol.
(Paris) Vol. 152, No. 2, 85-94.
Marchais P. and Grize, J.-B. (1997):
"Du raisonnement en psychiatrie. La logique de
fonction", Ann. Méd.-Psychol. (Paris) Vol. 155, No.
5, 297-311.
Marchais, P. and Randrup, A. (1994):
" Des thèmes de spiritualité en pathologie
mentale. Approche méthodologique", Ann.
Méd.-Psychol. (Paris) Vol. 152, No. 8, 541-546.
