The Who's reputation

Jim M NakedI at
Fri Jul 23 07:30:39 CDT 2004

----- Original Message ----- From: "L. Bird"

> >My point is that when I say I think one of Pete's works is "spiritual", I
> >mean it relates to his interpretation of god.  I think spiritual is the
> >ideal word to use, but for some reason we're trying to bend it to mean
> >something else.
> I think it's the ideal word, too.  I just think it IS ideal because it's a
> very general word that covers a broad array of feelings not necessarily
> related to Christianity or even to a Christian type of God.

Is there someone here that you think doesn't get that?

> How do you think we're bending the word?  Is this an unusual use of it?

Any definition that does not relate to the supernatural and divine or tries
to include purely observational experiences.  Things like the
meaning that essentially was "intelligent" or your "an awareness
of the wonder of the cosmos and a questioning of it's origin or of our place
in it."  Pick any of the other definitions from that source:

  1.. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not
tangible or material.
  2.. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
  3.. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
  4.. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
  5.. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

> I'm not trying to sterilize it.  I'm just trying to include that first man
> who ever looked up at the stars and said "How wonderful they are!  What do
> you suppose makes them turn like that?"  It takes us back to a time when
> science, religion, mathematics and philosophy were all the same and there
> was no division between.

Right, but originally man's only explanations were that *beings* had put
those things there.  If anything, we've been getting less spiritual.

But, is it really important?  Whatever word we used, I thought the
discussion was whether Pete's songs are about *his* god.

Jim M

More information about the TheWho mailing list