1) Definitions

We had a discussion on this subject during my MA. I did not enter it, because the 'stage was not set' for this kind of enquiry. What I mean is, the terms have to be defined. Otherwise, you can have a discussion where ten people understand the term 'spirituality' in ten different ways, and there is no constructive dialogue.

'Spirit' must be that which is not matter. This negative definition raises the question as to what matter is. Material substance is obviously matter. I suggest that so too are emotions and thoughts, albeit that they are 'faster' and more subtle. If spirituality is in some way transcendent, it has to be 'beyond' and more permanent than the fluctuations of thoughts and emotion.

It follows that the term 'spirit' is not applicable to how you are 'feeling' or what you 'believe'. These are psychological rather than spiritual matters, and a 'spiritual thought' or a 'spiritual feeling' is still just a thought or feeling. As the Zen people say, the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon. Belief is an amalgam of thought and feeling, different from fact. If there is such a thing as 'spirit' you should be able to discover it for yourself as a fact, regardless of belief.

If spirit is transcendent, it is a self-existent reality that precedes the mind, and thinking about it or 'feeling' is not the same thing as actual realisation.

We also discussed 'de-construction'. I find this simple premise elegant and intriguing. Meditation practice is a kind of de-construction, where you seek to transcend the fluctuations of mind and emotions and find increasingly subtle levels of stillness. It is the ultimate de-construction, where you 'unscramble' everything, rather than create speculative models and beliefs.

In the Indian tradition, there is an expression which means 'not this, not that': neti neti. It is both a philosophical principle and a practical 'tip' for the practice of meditation, where you seek no-thing. All phenomena are ultimately irrelevant because they are experiences which have a beginning and an end. Spiritual texts suggest that the ultimate spiritual realisation has no beginning or end and has to be realised rather than 'felt', 'imagined', 'visualised' or 'believed'. Spirituality is the ultimate rebellion, beyond all limits. If something has a limit - like an impermanent thought, feeling, or even physical death - it suggests that there is something more to be discovered.

2) Characteristics

Cyberspace - the 'consensual hallucination' defined by William Gibson - is an intriguing concept. Technically, it is no more than a network of computers. However within that network people are communicating in meaningful ways, such that it has become a social and cultural 'space'. It is not subject to geographic boundaries, and its inherently anarchic nature allows free-form communication. It is one-to-many, one-to-one, many-to-many and many-to-one.

When the glamour has gone, the Internet remains an extraordinary communication network. What has this to do with 'spiritual' values, and why do people claim it does?

Historically, new forms of technology have been viewed as a means of transforming society. The railway network provided a new geographic mobility that made people think the world was going to change. Early telephone technology attracted the same kind of optimism. The Internet is simply a new form of technologically-enhanced communication. Some people project 'spiritual' values onto it, as if it is a transcendent realm accessible to everyone (if they have the equipment), and its non-physical nature is precisely where its value lies.

Some religions have their own web sites, but I suggest that religion is not the same thing as spirituality. The Internet reflects civilisation in all its diversity, and contains content that ranges from erotica like that found in high street bookshops, to that which provokes legal intervention.

The Internet does allow new forms of communication, enabling what is now called 'virtual community'. The Well (www.well.com) was one of the first and remains one of the best examples of successful virtual community. It allows people to exchange comment and thought on literary, creative, philosophical, political and artistic questions. It is like a digitised 'philosophical café' and in that respect is 'new' only in its form rather than its content, i.e. the fact that it is non-physical.

Cyberspace suggests a 'space' where communication is possible between almost anyone, regardless of their physical circumstances and personal identity. It is a mental space where questions of gender, class, nationality and age are - or can be - irrelevant. If you enter a chat room or post on a message board, you communicate with other people in a digital forum which has no social stratification.

It is the interactivity of the Internet which gives it much of its value, and why we do not speak of 'radiospace' or 'televisionspace'. Those forms of communication are also non-physical but are mostly non-interactive and one-way. With the Internet, there is a feeling that your presence is equal to that of anyone else, and you can create your own web site just like anyone else.

3) Conclusions

Cyberspace rests on new technology and allows exciting new forms of communication. Yet the technology is physical and the communication reflects existing social interaction. It does not - as some people think - alter the corporeal reality of being human. If you are a woman or a man who would prefer to be the opposite gender, or perhaps a fantasy 'neutral' gender, then indulging that fantasy in cyberspace is no more than a temporary escape. The Internet allows you to do so, but in no more meaningful way than if you were playing an offline computer game. The Internet merely extends computing power; online interaction allows you to express your identity, rather than reconfigure it.

Cyberspace reflects life. This includes the murky and deranged, the frivolous, exciting or fun, and the subtle, inspiring and enquiring. It is no more exalted, just because it cannot be physically located. Ordinary life is sometimes complex and objectionable, as we see every day in the news. It is also - if we are lucky - where we experience happiness and satisfaction. Both possibilities exist in cyberspace, and both are psychological rather than 'spiritual', i.e. concerned with 'thought' and 'feeling'.

'Spirit' suggests something beyond thought and feeling, and cyberspace does not derive from any such realm. Equating the intriguing possibilities of cyberspace with spirituality is understandable, but false.

With regard to 'spiritual' questions, the value of cyberspace is the fact that it can be a metaphor for that which is truly transcendent and non-physical. It has stimulated a new enquiry into these questions, but they are ancient and not confined to Internet culture.