You are using words the way Jackson Pollack used pigments spewing them over the canvas like piss over snow with barely a hint of intelligent design, thought or control.

Why the insults, Jack? I come here in good faith & humour, not to be belittled because you don't get what I'm saying. I've done you the good grace of addressing your various points by way of good natured discussion. So please, take a deep breath and stick to the positive before letting rip with your vituperations. Otherwise... I love Jackson Pollock, and regularly feature the Pissing in the Snow anecdote in my storytelling sets, whilst the very idea of Intelligent Design gives me the horrors - though I'm sure that's not the sense in which you use the term here.

So... once again, in good faith...

I think my question to you is what the flock does define it?

Nothing does I'm afraid. It's akin to Art and Music - very abstract concepts with no clear parameters as to what they are, except for those small minded few who are forever trying to tell us what music is, or, for that matter, what it isn't. Spirituality is even wider, it rushes into places that simple dictionary definition can't reach. It is fluid, mutable, organic; it is different things to all people. Maybe it's easier to say what it isn't? It's not mystical, supernatural or religious - but all these things proceed from it as we attempt to fathom the fathomless in terms of empiricism and intuition. It is that which makes it all worthwhile, and, like love, it belongs to every one of us.