At the risk of more flimsy, online rhetoric - I repeat that the word "sacred" has no meaning for me.

My dictionary tells me that it is from "sacren" meaning to make holy, consecrate, sanctify, make sacred. It has connotations of being above criticism or opposition as in the colloquial "sacred cow".

I regard nothing as being above criticism, sanctified or holy. If you do, that's fine. I do accept the word "spiritual" but see spiritual experiences as being separate and quite independent of sacred and religious experiences.

"Knowing Paulus, I'd guess by "sacred" he was describing a sense of numinosity - mixed with some elements of respect, contact, cherishability and plain old undefinable inner glow."

Numinosity is a much mis-used word too. It doesn't actually exist. The word "numinous" is used in all sorts of pseudo pagan magic ways - none of which are accurate. Numinous is an adjective meaning spiritual, holy,divine. From the Indo-European via Latin, it actually meant originally "a nod of assent by a god". That seems to be a long way from a "plain old undefinable inner glow". So unless you believe in a god - both sacred and numinous are words that will convey much more than you intend if used. That is why I say that they have no meaning for me. If they do have for you - fine.

I'm trying to understand what you are implying by stating:

"Orginally it was a psychospatial opposition, referring to inside and outside "sacred spaces", temples. "Sacred"

But 'originally' is pretty non-specific, what source are you citing?

For instance, Chief Seattle used the word 'sacred' on in this speech, yet I find no inference or evidence of 'psychospatial opposition'.

"Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people"

So would 'sacred' as a word (as you claim) 'originally' have meant something different than this? And if indeed it is a movable, 'living' word, which of it's origins are you specifying when you identify the word with 'psychospatial opposition'?

Of course, translated speeches may be wrongly presented, and also tribal land is called 'land', so the whole Earth may or may not be considered 'sacred' by Native American tradition.

It would be interesting to find out though, as an inight into the past meaning of 'sacred'? There is another option, that it may have originally meant many things, depending upon how it was used. For instance, the Cherokee, I have heard, consider 'all water' to be sacred, yet they would also have a tool, or pipe, which would also be considered 'sacred', in a subtly different way.

Just some thoughts.

>Paulus asked me to chip in on this. I avoid online forums usually (found plenty of reasons here to carry on like this! ;-). But for a friend...<

What an extraordinarily arrogant comment to make but, as you've decided to take up the mantle on Paulus behalf, may I ask why? Is Paulus ill? Rendered speechless perhaps by this particular online forum? May we look forward to Paulus confirming that he agrees with what you say or shall we just take it for granted?

>In some sense, the idea that everything is sacred is nonsense...<

Is it? I suppose it is if you want to split etymological hairs, but you seem to be contradicting yourself when you say, ""Sacred" itself originally means to consecrate, and "to render inviolable, establish, confirm"." In this instance you are drawing our attention to the original meaning of the word 'sacred' while further down in your post you say, "Words are alive, and deserve to be interacted with more than used coldly or dismissed casually." If we are to accept that words are 'alive' should we not also accept that their meanings may no longer be the same as they once were? Do you want us to accept the word 'sacred' in its original sense as defined by Walter Skeat (my copy incidentally cost me considerably less than £80 - but then I did buy it more than forty years ago) or as defined in, say, the OERD (1996)?

>Better, check an etymological dictionary and do a bit of meditation...<

At the risk of falling into, "...obvious flimsy online forum rhetoric." I would refer you to the following (I'm sure you'll know where to find it).

<i>Were man to live co-eval with the sun,
The Patriarch-pupil would be learning still.</i>

>>Words are alive, and deserve to be interacted with more than used coldly or dismissed casually.<<

I think this is appreciated and practised much more by Eastern cultures nowadays than our own. We tend to be very careless with our use of words unless it's for something out of the ordinary.

Rune