If I may, a rough definition of "spirituality": entities, principles, processes, or states whose common denominator is that they are absolute. This "absoluteness" places them outside of time.

As for "borderline" entities (photons or waves): as I understand it, they are not "absolute" and therefore not outside time. Consequently, in principle they can be measured in quantitative terms (which cannot be said of "objects" of a spiritual kind such as love, soul, God, values, etc.).

As stated, this is a partial definition, but in my opinion it stands the practical test in most cases.

One more tiny little point that fluttered out of my spiritual memory…

The spiritual is connected to hierarchy (and therefore also to rationality), at whose head stands an absolute being. If we like, God.

I don't agree (is it impossible to change a personality?). I enjoyed the "practical test" part (!) 🙂

1. Which of the things I said don't you agree with? I said several.
2. I said that spirituality is absolute (even if we still need to clarify in exactly what sense). You don't agree with that either?
3. We've already talked about personality in the past. You didn't define well enough what you mean when you bring it as an example.
4. Now I'm trying to define it: the concept of personality can be understood in two ways. The first—in a spiritual-metaphysical sense (psyche, soul, etc.).
5. If we're talking about that sense, I find it hard to see how one can speak here about change, especially quantitative change.
6. But the concept of "personality" can also be understood differently, that is, on the psychological-physiological level: cognition, behavior, and emotional responses.
7. If you're talking about that sense, then indeed there is no problem attributing changes to it. But then we're not dealing with a metaphysical-spiritual entity.
8. In short: the first sense is philosophical and the "personality" serves as a substrate; the second sense is "scientific," and personality is nothing more than the set of patterns according to which it operates.
9. Take me and my personality, for example: in the past I was a bitter and frustrated person. Over the years my situation improved, and today I am an irritable, misanthropic, quarrelsome person. In light of this, it would certainly be correct to say that my patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior have changed. But can you say that I am a different person? That there is an additional personality here? A new "Doron"? I'm not sure.

I don't know what "absolute" means: not subject to change? I see no reason at all to assume that. And it is certainly not true that this is the definition of the spiritual (that also can't be tested).
If personality changes (for example character traits and way of conducting oneself), how do you know that the spiritual element remained unchanged? If you mean that it is still the same person, that is also true of the Ship of Theseus, which is a material object.

If I may… perhaps the uniqueness of personality as a spirituality that can change lies in its unique dual composition—spirit and matter.
After all, that is the traditional view of a person's spiritual soul: once it leaves this world, the possibility of repair and change comes to an end, and it is subject to reward according to its absolute spiritual worth. As they said: "Better one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world than all the life of the World to Come; and better one hour of bliss in the World to Come than all the life of this world."

Granted 🙂
Maybe you're right.

Michi,

1. First we need to agree that the word "absolute" has some meaning (just as the words "relative," "table," or "fruit bat" have some meaning). That's even before we agree among ourselves what that meaning is. Presumably you too have some interpretation of this concept…
2. And this is my proposal: I think a spiritual object is not subject to change on the assumption (which seems reasonable to me) that there is no multiplicity in it at all. In philosophical language—it is "simple." When an object has parts, then presumably there are certain relations among them, and those can change—even if only in a principled-logical sense. When there is no multiplicity, then there is no relation, and consequently change cannot arise.
3. It is true that "personality" also seems complex (not simple), but as stated, this can be solved if we separate its actual layers from the spiritual substrate underlying it (if such a thing indeed exists).
4. Regarding the Ship of Theseus, I completely disagree with you. As far as I understand, the only way to speak of the enduring identity of a material object is to "guarantee" it by assuming the existence of a more stable spiritual counterpart that serves as its anchor (a kind of idea). If you are not willing to take that step, then the object is not really the same object except by sharing the same name.

Dvir,

I'm not sure what you're proposing is different from what I proposed—a duality between the empirical layer (or at least the actual one) and the metaphysical-spiritual layer.

Okay, everyone has stated his position, and the chooser may choose.