Thank you for the comments ! You’ve raised a lot of points, so I’m not sure which bits are the most important to you. So I’ll stick with the definition of ‘spirituality’, for now.

You’ve equated ‘spirituality’ with spirit which you say is unknowable and mysterious. But how do you know that? If it’s unknowable, then nobody knows about it, and no one would be able to identify it, let alone point to it and name it. And how would we ‘understand’ something that we can neither identify nor know? What would we ‘attach’ our understanding to?

Then you say that analysis destroys the essence of spirit? How does it do that, exactly? How do you destroy something unknowable? How do you know when it’s destroyed?

I don’t raise these questions as a matter of ‘logic’, but as a matter of a certain kind of persistent and sceptical rationality — holding a phenomenon up for inspection and then seeing — as best we can — what it looks like, and how it performs.

I well understand that the animating principle in all experiencing is elusive as well as evasive. But we can still talk about it, and identify it, and even point to where it was last, before it eluded us again.

I hope this gives you some idea of the way I approach these matters.