Volume 6 / Issue 1 SPRING 2020

2 6 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 6 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 2 0 Spiritual Noetic Psychological Psychosomatic Somatic Socio-cultural context Fig. 1. Schematic representation of human personality dimensions (Wong 1998, in Halama 2007, 91) Noo-dynamics is then a fruitful tension between one’s pres - ent state and a certain ideal, concerning the meaningfulness of his/her own life, in other words, “ between the life as it is and the life as it is supposed to be ” (Frankl, in Balcar 1995). Yet, noetic dimension encompasses not only the processes of seeking and creating the meaning of life, but also experiencing freedom in decision-making and responsibility for one’s life, taking an attitude towards external issues or transcendental values. As Wong’s diagram shows, the noetic dimension lies in the area of the intersection of the psychical and spiritual dimensions (see Fig. 1). While spiritual dimension contains abilities like awareness of spiritual sphere of life, capability to communicate with God, contact with transcendent; psychological dimension implies perception, learning, reasoning, higher cognitive processes, and social processes, the main content of noetic dimension is the will to meaning, spiritual values and beliefs, moral reasoning, as well as positive attitudes in suffering. Therefore, it should be one of the most important goals of education to contribute to the development of a noetic dimension. 2 Conceptual Framework of the Study Our research study begins with the following simple idea: A quality meaning in life leads to an overall eudaimonic life . Obviously, there are several (hidden) variables in this statement: the quality of the meaning in life grows with the degree to which one is capable of manifesting self-transcendent attitudes (Wong 2016), as well as virtuous actions (Haldane 2015). The crucial point of the idea is that meaning in life functions not as an external stimulus to be more prosocial or virtuous, rather it is the deepest (existential) motivation and result of prosocial and virtuous actions. In other words, we don’t need to find meaning in life to be prosocial, rather to be prosocial and virtuous aremeans of seeking the meaning in life, and even more, in terms of dialogic philosophy it’s its own final fulfillment. This is near to Frankl’s statement, that every life situation, even the worst and hopeless, carries the meaning that one has to discover. Even in suffering, one can find and realize meaning through the human ability of self-transcendence, the ability to transcend one’s own needs, and focus on values that lie beyond it. From this point of view, meaning in life is simply a component of eudaimonia. Therefore, the concept of eudaimonia can’t be reduced to “subjective” or “hedonistic” well-being (Diener 1984; Kahneman et al . 1999), which is probably related with incorrect translation of the term into English as simply “happi - ness”. On a common understanding, “happiness” for humans necessarily includes subjective feelings of pleasure and life satisfaction. Rather it should get back to Aristotelian concept offlourishing [1]. To flourish is to fulfil one’s potential as a human individual. In most cases “ flourishing life will also be blessed with positive feelings, as the icing on the cake ”. However, advocates of eudaimonia find both pleasure and life satisfaction too fleeting, superficial and malleable to constitute the true essence of flourishing. Flourishing consti - tutes an ongoing activity that comprises, most crucially, the realization of specifically human excellences (virtues). Virtues , in comparison to traits, habits or dispositions, are defined as states of character, which are acquired first through upbring - ing and later one’s own repeated choices, coalescing into stable patterns (Kristjánsson 2015, 13–14). “ Since eudaimonia is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue ” (Aristotle, EN I.13). That means, besides others, that full-valued moral life has holistic parameters. “ Each virtue is typically seen