When we find in the table a word that is listed on the right column, we mark it with a pencil, both in the table and in the list. The game consists in finding all the words given in the list and then reading the remaining letters, which will form a new word or a phrase, for example a proverb. For example, you can see that in the forth from last row, reading backwards, there is the word “AVIDLY”.

At this point we can imagine creating a word search without planning previously our words, but rather filling the table with just random letters. Then, looking at the table, we could happen to identify words that fortuitously come out. At that point one may wonder: are those words really in the word search table, or is it just our mind deciding to see them there? It is obvious that, as a combination of letters, they are physically there, but it is our mind that decides whether or not to see those words. For example, the word NODNOL could be accidentally formed, which read backwards is “London”. One could say: “There is the word London”. Somebody else might object: “No, there is only a sequence of letters; saying that there is the word “London” is not accurate: it is you who in that sequence decide to see the word “London” ”. In short, we have a mixture of an objective fact (that is, those letters actually form the word “London” when read backwards) and a subjective fact (the letters form the word “London” just because the reader knows that word and therefore he finds natural to see it; those letters could suggest nothing to another person). This consideration can be seen as a mixture of a material and a spiritual fact: those letters in that direction are a material fact; but is the word “London” a material or a spiritual fact, since only certain people are able to see it? At this point any answer can be correct, either a response from “atheists” or a different one from “believers”, who decide to think that there, in spirit, for those who agree to see it, there is the word “London”. This is the endless debate between metaphysicians and antimetaphysicians. It can be extended at will, and this today happens between philosophers and non philosophers, because it is not difficult to counter any statement with an opposite objection, without being possible to determine who is right. The structures of spirituality that we are trying to understand are involved in these issues.

Additional notes

The infinite discussion between metaphysicians and postmoderns can be oriented in a different way to make it more fruitful. We can start from the ancient definition of truth as conformity between things, which is reality, the world external to our mind, and understanding. We can consider that what our intellect tries to understand is not reality directly, reality itself, but the signals received by our senses. This way we can realize that the conformity we have to work on is not just between reality and our senses, but especially between our senses and our intellect. We need to add conformity between the different components of our intellect, that concur to build our final understanding. This way we can notice that the most needed work is that which happens entirely inside us. Moreover, this kind of work, being largely conditioned by subjectivity, is endless, because any conclusion is still under the conditioning caused by subjectivity. As a consequence, truth, rather than being considered as the final reached conformity between reality and intellect, is an endless activity that we try to cultivate inside ourselves. This way, rather than endlessly debating about reality and subjectivity, a much more fruitful work consists in endlessly meditating on the spiritual experience produced inside us, which can be considered the real meaning and nature of truth.