Dear Marion,

For someone who is (about to be) very busy you are extraordinarily
generous with your time; I thank you very much for your generosity,
I thank you very much for your letter. As I implied to Benjamin in
the letter I forwarded, I consider my writing an unjustified and
unjustifiable imposition, the logorrhea of a garrulous old man which
requires apology and imposes no obligation at all of an answer.
I'm forwarding to you also the sequel of my discussions with Katenus.
I take childish pleasure in the irony of purporting to argue with
the characters I invent.

You and I are, I believe, in solid agreement about the validity of
Darwin's work as science; and I infer that you will indulge my
propensity to take umbrage (with Kierkegaard) at what he deprecated
as "world-historical" (das Welt-Historische, verdenshistorisk),
namely Hegel's presumption to parade "Geist" or "Weltgeist" around
the lecture hall as if it were a sheep or a goat or a horse on
display at the Minnesota State Fair. There is an important but
obscure link between the reality (or the Spirit) of history,
and the Spirituality for which Benjamin's teacher sought the help
of his students.

I may be badly mistaken, but absent other indications, I infer that
the contest between spirituality and religion staged by Benjamin's
teacher is an ideologically driven propagandistic effort to sensitize
students to the prevalence of spirituality outside the confines of
the Temple or the Church. I thought it was a Rorschach test of sorts.
I'm not at all sure that what I wrote was of any value to Benjamin
or that he made any use of it.

I'm much appreciative, and I thank you especially also for your
eloquent exposition of spirituality as emanation from the sense
organs, as projection, as quasi-radiation of ones spirit into the
cosmos. I sense that this psycho-cosmology has a venerable 
literary - and philosophical tradition, although I'm insufficiently
learned to have examples at my finger tips, - except for Goethe's
"Waer nicht das Auge sonnenhaft, die Sonne wuerd' es nicht erblicken."
(If the eye were not solar, it could never recognize the sun.)
(Makes the ophthalmologist in me cringe for concern about macular
burns from gazing at the sun.)

The term spirituality, as I understand it, is a catch-all to designate
a wide spectrum of otherwise unnamed experience. Wisely or otherwise,
I chose, in my reply to Benjamin, to equate spirituality with subjectivity,
a term with which I have been struggling for many years. As you are
probably aware, the term "subject" and "object" have (partially)
exchanged their meanings in the past five-hundred years, although we
still speak of the underlying concept of a lecture or of a book
as its subject. In the Middle Ages, the celestial bodies, the stars
were subjects par excellence as underlying the reality of the cosmos
and hence of our experience. Subject is the translation into Latin of
Aristotles' hypokeimenon, Unterlage, underlayer, whereas object, accidens
is the haphazard, transient modification of the permanent subject. It turns
out, however, that modern science spurns what is subjective, because
what is subjective escapes definition, and is hence inaccessible to the
communication and community of knowledge that we call science. Science
expresses its disdain - if not contempt - for what by definition
escapes its definition, and has enthroned and worships the converse:
objectivity.

In accordance with this modern use of the terms, I consider objectivity
to be that quality or characteristic of our world which is accessible to
and interpreted identically by all individuals similarly situated,
while subjectivity, comprising all that is not "objective" is the
experience (Erleben) which is unique to the individual and is 
accordingly not susceptible to communication. It is this equation
of spirituality with subjectivity which I was trying to explain
and express in my letter to Benjamin.

There's no denying that the distinction between subjective and objective
is tenuous and is difficult to maintain. There are broad areas of
experience where the two seem to overlap or to intrude on one another,
and where perhaps they are not susceptible to separation: public
religion, art, and the esthetic perception of nature. Indeed, arguably
it is the function of religion and of art to create a bridge between
what is subjective and what is objective.

In this context, I'm reminded of Hoelderlin's:

Eines zu sein mit Allem, was lebt, in seliger Selbstvergessenheit
wiederzukehren ins All der Natur, das ist der Gipfel der Gedanken
und Freuden, das ist die heilige Bergeshöhe, der Ort der ewigen Ruhe,
wo der Mittag seine Schwüle und der Donner seine Stimme verliert
und das kochende Meer der Woge des Kornfelds gleicht.  
_                                                (Hyperion)

and Lord Byron:
Are not the mountains, waves and skies a part of me
and of my soul as I of them?

I'm reminded also of my favorite contemporary pantheist who wrote:

"Spirituality ... discourages us from closing ourselves off
within a materialistic world.  And in encouraging us to feel
a kinship with our surroundings, it counteracts loneliness,
separation anxiety, fear of being overwhelmed and abandoned. 

"Spirituality helps one feel "self-sufficient" by realizing
that one is linked to a sphere that is larger and more powerful
than onesself.  Also the invitation to open onesself to others
and to one's surroundings, permits one to learn more about
one's surroundings, social as well as natural, and so become
more competent in achieving what one yearns for.  (I think
"self-sufficient" means that one has the insight, ability,
fortitude, etc. to make one's way in the world through
interaction with others and one's surroundings; it does NOT mean,
if you ask me, managing in isolation as you seemed to imply.)"
 
"It is so interesting to me that I think of Spirituality
as emanating from our eyes, ears, fingertips, and the associated
brain parts.  Basically emanations that float outward from myself. 
You, in contrast, seem to think of Spirituality first as located
deep inside yourself, involving communion between your deep-within
soul and God. Ultimately though, I think we have the same idea. 
We just approach it from opposite ends."

As for the "deep-within" bit, I consider "inwardness" and 
"Innerlichkeit", to be semantic anomalies which have their
historic explanation in the circumstance that prior to modern
surgery, especially prior to modern neurosurgery, physical
exploration of the geometrically inward portions of the human
body were incompatible with life. That's why "heart and soul"
are linked in poetry, that's why Descartes considered the pineal
gland, the surgically least accessible part of the brain, to be
the seat of the soul. I didn't choose the term "Innerlichkeit",
I didn't invent the language. I have to use it as it is received,
- ueberliefert.

Finally, in this context,  I'm reminded of Katenus, who said:
"To be misunderstood is my certification of being yet alive."

Jochen