The philosophy supporting our approach

---

Whenever we need to talk about something, we need to choose words, and words have concepts associated with them.  On the surface, those concepts appear to be clearly defined and unambiguous, giving the appearance of having sharp boundaries, just as we may encounter in a dictionary.

However, going deeper into this question from the perspectives of the philosophy of language and cognitive science, it becomes apparent that every instance of meaning may be sometimes related to others in one aspect or another, with certain aspects overlapping while others being incompatible.

To provide an example, we propose a familiar term, which at first seems unnecessary to define it, given that every person uses it and intuitively knows what it means.  For this purpose, we have selected the word “time.” 

Time can be used easily in an everyday context, but just as well, it can be used in a more complex context within science or philosophy.  Time therefore has different uses.  We can survey and lay out a number of uses in language and then indicate how they operate and whether they can be related. 

It’s Time 

Pass Time 

Time heals 

Take Time 

Waste Time 

Manage Time 

Time flies 

Time out 

A good Time 

Space-Time 

Kill some Time 

Out of Time 

Spend Time 

Once upon a Time 

Time stops 

Eat Time up 

Time drags 

Stop Time 

Time passes

All in good Time 

No Time

Great Time

What time is it?

At what Time...

Time's up

Arrow of Time

The list presents many instances in which the word “time” is used.  All the expressions are familiar.  As one attempts to find a common element to all instances in order to define it, one realizes that every expression carries different connotations.

In the case of “time flies,” for example, time seems to be something physical that we cannot get a hold of, or something we are trying to catch up with.  At first, this may seem trivial, but as the analysis (i. e. philosophical or conceptual analysis) continues, it will reveal more subtleties and nuances. 

In the case of the phrase “wasting time,” the word time is used with connotations of the inappropriate use of a resource that is being depleted.  However, if we look at “spending time,” we find that both are somewhat related, because time seems to be also considered a resource.  However, the connotation differs in the latter suggesting someone is conducting an activity of a certain value.  These instances have different functions, yet can be linked by a similarity of use - time is used as a resource.

Looking at another use, to “manage time” implies that time is something that may fall into disarray if not handled properly or something that tends to chaos.  Here again, we see the word used as a noun signifying something material.

The expression “it’s time,” on the other hand, is used in an entirely different way.  It is used as an instruction. There is no materiality to the expression. It implies someone must do something, or stop doing something.  It is a call to action.  That is its function.  Such use has an affinity with a completely different expression, “all in good time,” which actually constitutes a call for patience or hope.  The latter is not an order, so does not have that imperative association of the expression “it’s time.”  Nevertheless, it is a suggestion, advice, or a call to action as well – to wait while persevering, to exercise patience.

“Out of time” represents the opposite.  It could be construed as a call to desist or accept some kind of failure.  While presenting a clear dissimilarity to “all in good time,” it is linked to “no time,” although the latter addresses an earlier stage, a call to renounce an idea prior to action, so to speak.  It has a different nuance.

This process of finding the similarities in function allows for drawing the links between words.  If two phrases are similar in function, a link can be drawn between them.  As one progresses in the analysis of all the selected uses, the table becomes a visible network.  The more nuanced the analysis, the greater number of links that the network will present. 

What emerges from this exercise is a context.  This context can be depicted as a network formed by instances - different uses of the word that share some similarities in how they function in language to convey meaning.  Some instances are linked, while others are not, and the links may overlap. There are several ways to determine whether the uses are linked, that is, whether they have a similar function in how they convey meaning, but these details are better suited for a separate discussion.  What is interesting is that whether related or not, all known instances of a specific word belong in the network. They represent aspects of the concept.  They are concrete, existing instances of the word in use and with a particular function.  One may choose to include all uses or not, but that is a choice.

Mapping such a context yields a view of the actual field of meanings.  In the case of Spirituality, current notions may shift, may be enriched, or new ones may be created when exposed to new ways of thinking.  We can stretch our conceptual space and open up new possibilities of meaning.  New questions appear and can be pondered.  Awareness of the diversity contained in the conceptual map renders arguments senseless.  Conversely, awareness of the diversity fosters discussion, since all cases are modes of representation of lived experience.

By witnessing other instances of spirituality and therefore by expanding our range of articulation, we may, as philosopher Charles Taylor has suggested, re-gestalt or re-configure our own experience.